# Millions rally against war: is that reason enough to delay or stand down? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2003, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416 "2003-02-16T07:40:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/141 "2003-02-18T07:38:20Z")
I’ve always thought that being lucid and being emotional were not mutually exclusive. Sorry if my state of pissedness weakens my arguments. :rolleyes: No matter which polls are the most accurate reflection of the thinking of Americans, the country is obviously terribly divided. Shouldn’t the country be as unified as possible before attacking another country? The only way that is going to happen is if every other means of ousting Hussein and disarming the country is exhausted. Also, the last time I saw this issue addressed in the polls, a majority of U.S. citizens believed that an attack on Iraq would increase the likellhood of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. That also sounds to me like a fairly lucid reason for exhausting all other means of ousting Hussein before attacking. As for the effectiveness of marches and protests, I seem to remember that the French used to have a king and a queen and the Russians had a Czar. If I am not mistaken, the changes began with protests. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/142 "2003-02-18T08:00:55Z")
[Editorial argues that we’ve waited too long.](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003086) > [@](#): > > If necessary, Saddam will offer to polish Mr. Blix’s clogs. But he’ll never tell him where Iraq is hiding weapons that it admits it once had. Nor will Saddam let anyone know what his weapons-makers are doing. His cheat-and-retreat strategy has worked for 12 years. Unless something hard hits him, there’s no reason why he should stop. In another 12 years he’ll be 77, younger than some Arab rulers. After that, he could place a son in command to continue the game. > > During the '90s, we were told that war was an excuse for the establishment of an American “empire” in the Balkans. But just ask the Serbs, the Albanians, the Kosovars, the Croats, the Slovenes, the Macedonians and other peoples of the peninsula what they think of that claim. In 1993, Alija Izetbegovich, then the beleaguered president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, explained his feelings to me in the starkest possible manner: “Only the Americans could save us from annihilation. If they do not come, there will soon be no Muslims left in the former Yugoslavia. The Europeans will debate until we are all dead.” I admit, I opposed action then. Now I think I was wrong. [Things are getting a little edgy in the UK also](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-581725,00.html) > [@](#): > > Almost alone among my friends, I did not go on The March. My absence was not due to ambivalence, but because I considered the march to be contemptible. I think the marchers are not only wrong but dangerously, wilfully, shamefully wrong. > > Since this is, literally, a matter of life and death, I have been prepared to tell them precisely why I think that they are so in error. Their response has been to tell me what they think of me. > > In all my 38 years, I have never before felt such a sense of personal shock. I am shocked that so many of my friends would rather a brutal dictator remained in power — for that would be the direct consequence if their views won out — than support military action by the United States. I am ashamed that they would rather believe the words of President Saddam Hussein than those of their own Prime Minister. I am nauseated that they would rather give succour to evil than think through the implications of their gut feelings. “Succour to evil”? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/143 "2003-02-18T08:03:51Z")
**Zoe** , I’m just waiting for some loon to counter your last point with something like: “See, protesting turns you into a C.E.S.M! Protesting caused Stalin!” ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/144 "2003-02-18T08:21:09Z")
Desmostylus, here’s hoping you have pre-disastered me! Actually, ever since I started protesting attacking Iraq, I’ve also had this urge to stand on street corners singing “La Vien Rose” while accompanying myself on the accordian. Do you think there is any chance of my turning (gasp!) _French_? ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/145 "2003-02-18T08:32:50Z")
Might not be the safest thing to do right now. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/146 "2003-02-18T13:21:38Z")
Beagle: Well being editorials they make an argument for a point. And as usually the point is there before the argument was made up. Classical rethoric, in other words. We’ll see if it succeeds in winning the voters. As for the first one - in what way is this different to the US administrations official policy line? All these things we have already heard from Colin Powell. The second - this bullshit must trace back to the 60s, that about peace protesters being responsible for the atrocitys of communism, dictators, Saddam Hussein and so on. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/147 "2003-02-18T13:46:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*ElvisL1ves: The main factors that made it unreasonable for commuter airlines was its size. …I remember it as 15,000 ft, but feel free to consider that speculative until I can find a cite for it. With your history here of inventing “facts” to support a preconception, that is imperative for you as it would not be for most others. Let’s consider that post by you withdrawn for now, then. Please consider the importance of credibility in the future, and we’ll all be better off. You asked later what difference the Grenada invasion meant to the world, anyway: Virtually none, except that its dog-wagging timing and farcicality of execution reduced the credibility of US foreign policy and military strength for a while. Would they be better off under a “Communist dictator”? It remains to be shown that they were then, or would be now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/148 "2003-02-18T13:48:45Z")
**Beagle** , it’s touching to think that editorial writer in Britain would be in support of US action (he didn’t say UK). It’s easy to support an effort if it’s somebody else doing the hard work, offering their lives and paying the bills. It gets very tiring to listen to some of this “Let’s you and him fight” yapping from other countries at times. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/149 "2003-02-18T14:32:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Can any Doper tell us if the BBC is really as anti-war as this message claims it is? \*\* The way the Beeb reports is this (generally): if they report one viewpoint, they almost always report the opposing one, for balance. This is particularly noticeable in programs like NewsNight: when they were interviewing anti-war protestors from the weekend, they had a pro-war Labour party representative in the studio, and they had a satellite link to a hawk in Washington. If they report on Iraqi opposition, they get a pro-Iraq representative too. And the interviewers are professional devils’ advocates, taking the opposing side to _any_ POV. If one chooses to highlight only the views one disagrees with from this style of presenting, one is bound to get annoyed. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/150 "2003-02-18T15:54:45Z")
Since **Beagle** has opened this thread up to discussion of media representations and relevant columns, I thought [this Krugman column](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html) would be of particular interesting. **december** , **jjim** , it’s do do with the sources of the differing perspectives in the US vs. Europe, and television is a main focus. Aside to **jjim** , I was waiting for someone currently living in the UK to answer **december** ’s question. Now that you’ve posted I just wanted to confirm. The “Jeremy” alluded to by **december** is Jeremy Paxman, no? And, if so, does he not have a reputation of giving really hardass interviews to politicians and others from all sides of the spectrum? (I once saw him give Michael Hesseltine (sp?), a Tory, a terrific going over and my oppression was that he’s an equal-opportunity journalistic tough guy.) Here’s an excerpt from the column: \*" Most people, though, get their news from TV ? and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday’s antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media. What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as “the usual protesters” or “serial protesters.” CNN wasn’t quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network’s Web site read “Antiwar rallies delight Iraq,” and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York. This wasn’t at all the way the rest of the world’s media reported Saturday’s events, but it wasn’t out of character. For months both major U.S. cable news networks have acted as if the decision to invade Iraq has already been made, and have in effect seen it as their job to prepare the American public for the coming war."\* ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/151 "2003-02-18T15:56:50Z")
That should have been my “impression” of Paxman, not my “oppression.” Apologies for weird slip! ---
**Author:** ![owlstretchingtime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/958977/32.png) [@owlstretchingtime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlstretchingtime)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/152 "2003-02-19T12:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tagos \* > \*\* > > As a life-long Labour supporter I guarantee I will never, ever, voe for them again if blair proceeds with this war and you can be sure i’m bot alone in this. Blair is finished if he ignores this protest like the Poll Tax protests finished Thatcher. \*\* As a life long tory I am curious: Assuming Blair goes ahead (and that does seem likely) who would you vote for? Lib Dems, greens? I am just curious and I think the reason you will all be (IMHO rightly) ignored is that Blair knows there is nowhere else for you to go politically. The only political parties avowedly against the war? Greens and BNP. Odd bed fellows, no? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/153 "2003-02-19T14:52:10Z")
Yeah, **Mandelstam** , Jeremy Paxman is da man for interviewing politicians. He doesn’t care who they are, he always rips them a new one. He’s famous for an interview where he asked a politician the same question 19 times in a row: according to Paxman, he had run out of things to say, but the effect was to make the politician look like a weasel, because, despite the volume, he failed to answer the question once. There are clips of Paxman at work on the BBC website, though I can’t find any at present. It would be quite an eye-opener for people used to US media to see how disrespectful and harsh he was to Blair. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/154 "2003-02-19T15:03:08Z")
Here’s a [transcript](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm) of the recent Paxman vs. Blair, and here’s a link to the [RA file](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2729297.stm). I particularly like this exchange: > [@](#): > > **JEREMY PAXMAN:** …I want to explore a little further about your personal feelings about this war. Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts in terms of good and evil? > > **TONY BLAIR** : I don’t think so, no, I think that whether you’re a Christian or you’re not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil. > > **JEREMY PAXMAN:** You don’t pray together for example? > > **TONY BLAIR:** No, we don’t pray together Jeremy, no. > > **JEREMY PAXMAN:** Why do you smile? > > **TONY BLAIR:** Because - why do you ask me the question? > > **JEREMY PAXMAN:** Because I’m trying to find out how you feel about it. > > **TONY BLAIR:** Possibly. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/155 "2003-02-19T15:16:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > I thought [this Krugman column](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/18/opinion/18KRUG.html) would be of particular interesting. **december** , **jjim** , it’s do do with the sources of the differing perspectives in the US vs. Europe, and television is a main focus. I’m embarassed to admit that that I agree with Krugman that news coverage is different on both sides of the Atlantic. However, I would question his choice of CNN and Fox News to typify American news coverage. These two stations between them have at most around a million viewers. The major station news shows have 30 million viewers or more. [Andrew Sullivan](http://andrewsullivan.com/) and his readers suggest that BBC is quite biased. Scroll down for several examples and links to the cited BBC articles. > [@](#): > > I’m even more struck by the anti-anti-Saddam slant. Here’s a recent one, to give you a flavor: a piece posing as journalism focussing on a handful of liberal churches in the U.S. supporting a non-violent removal of Saddam. How would such a removal be accomplished? By encouraging civil disobedience among Iraqis…For balance, the outside “expert” who gives his take on the idea is a leading former member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (which, of course, doesn’t want to disarm Saddam). It’s a classic Beeb piece - not really news, utterly slanted, with a patina of easily-debunked objectivity. > > …But more objectionable are the voices of people in Iraq, presented with no context in exactly the same format as interviews in Paris and London and Washington. As if there weren’t a gun pointed at the back of their head… > > …Now, Paxman is a notoriously rude and offensive interviewer in what is a ruder and more offensive political-media culture in Britain. But this grilling of Blair took things to a new level… [interview segment]… Note the complete contempt for Blair. Note the silly semantics treated as if it were a real point. Note the insufferable pomposity of Paxman. And the audience was drawn entirely from people opposed to the Blair policy. Not a single affirmative question or sympathetic comment was allowed. Fair and balanced. That’s our Beeb. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/156 "2003-02-19T15:30:28Z")
There’s plenty of pro-war stuff on the BBC website and media. Pretty much everything emanating from the US is pro-war, so the Beeb looks for alternative voices, too. As I said before, if you choose to isolate that, then sure it looks biased. All news media seek out “unusual” opinions and phenomena on which to report - remember those pod hotels in Tokyo? Personally I find Andrew Sullivan to be a thundering warmonger, and he’s a pundit too, so his views on the Beeb aren’t anything more than his opinion (unlike you, **december** , to quote a right-wing pundit to back up your argument… :)). Paxman may be “pompous” (I’d personally say “sneering”) but the “contempt” and “rudeness” are _precisely what he’s paid for_. I think Sullivan’s gone native. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/157 "2003-02-19T15:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\*There’s plenty of pro-war stuff on the BBC website and media. Pretty much everything emanating from the US is pro-war, so the Beeb looks for alternative voices, too. \*\* Actually, there’s lots of anti-war stuff in the US media. Your first sentence would be more convincing with a few cites. I do agree with you that Andrew Sullivan is pro-war. He is quite conservative, in the sense of the libertarianian side. BTW is the phrase _going native_ politically correct? It sounds like an ethnic slur. ---
**Author:** ![anongremlin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee59a6/32.png) [@anongremlin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anongremlin)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/158 "2003-02-19T16:36:21Z")
I’m not trying to be controversial. I truly would like some insight into this. I looked up the populations of the United States, Russia, Japan, England and Australia. All were 1997 estimates, except for England, which was a 1995 estimate. The total populations of these five countries alone was 607 million people. MSNBC’s website estimated 6 million people worldwide protested. That would be less than 1% of the total population of these five countries alone. Even if you accounted for 50% of that total population being unable to protest due to age, handicap, prior commitments, etc. 6 million people would be just 2% of half the population of those five countries. The worldwide population is estimated at 6 billion. Again, accounting for half those people not being able to protest, it would be .2% of half the world population that protested. Taken alone, 6 million protesters is an impressive number, but taken as a whole there was actually a very small percentage of people protesting the war. I’m not very adept at math or statistics. Is there another way to look at this? ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/159 "2003-02-19T16:40:49Z")
Yes - don’t assume that those who actually were able to make it out to a protest are the only ones who oppose the war with Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2003, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416/160 "2003-02-19T16:46:05Z")
**jjimm** , thanks very much for posting that transcript. A few thoughts are below. **december** : _"However, I would question his choice of CNN and Fox News to typify American news coverage. These two stations between them have at most around a million viewers. The major station news shows have 30 million viewers or more. "_ I’m not sure where you get these figures from. It’s my understanding that CNN and Fox have been attracting an increasingly large viewership often at the expense of the traditional broadcasters. However, from my view, it’s not worth debating because I don’t see a great deal of difference between them. Andrew Sullivan is one to talk about slant! I find it rather odd, for example, that he refers to the coverage on liberal churches as an “anti-anti-Saddam slant” when the churches in question support a non-violent _removal of Saddam_! Is one only anti-Saddam if one subscribes to the precise Bush form of being anti-Saddam? This brings “you’re either with us or against us to a new level.” **december** , you can listen to the BBC world service on your local NPR radio station and judge for yourself (some PBS channels also air BBC television news). For that matter, you can use the link provided by **jjimm** to surf around. A great deal of the BBC’s coverage of news takes a very traditional form: reporters reporting on world events in a straightforward fashion. I think it’s absurd for Sullivan to cast the BBC as providing “not really news, utterly slanted, with a patina of…objectivity.” As though Sullivan himself, a world-famous hypocrite–(I’m assuming most of you know what I’m referring to)–is a Pulitzer-class investigative journalist! One of the best features of the BBC is the relatively short shrift given to punditry–the kind of punditry that has elevated Sullivan to prominence. (FYI **december** , the next time you come across a “liberal media” kvetch on the Straight Dope please remember that the _New York Times_ is largely responsible for Sullivan’s prominence.) As to the interview itself: I only read through it about halfway so far: but enough to get the tenor. I think it’s wonderful that British politicians are expected to deal with level of “cross examination.” Since Paxman is vigorous towards politicians of every stripe, there is no question of bias–just of the level of public questioning politicians must expect to deal with as one of the duties of their office. Blair has plenty of opportunities to make speeches without interrogation. In fact, I actually felt sorry for Blair here and there; and here and there I agreed with him more than the people who were asking him questions, and thought he did a very good job of defending himself. That’s the way public debate _should_ be. Can you imagine George Bush fielding those kinds of questions?! It’s almost unthinkable. All that aside what is _most_ interesting about the interview to me is the way that Blair justifies the war (or attempts to do so) to the British public. \*"PAXMAN: Prime Minister, for you to commit British forces to war there has to be a clear and imminent danger to this country - what is it? TONY BLAIR: The danger is that if we allow Iraq to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons they will threaten their own region, there is no way that we would be able to exclude ourselves from any regional conflict there was there as indeed we had to become involved last time they committed acts of external aggression against Kuwait."\* Notice that this is very different from the kind of imminent threat arguments that we have gotten served up to us here: esp. the allegations that Saddam and Osama are in “partnership.” [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19FRIE.html) is yet another interesting commentary, this time from Thomas Friedman, a _Times_ columnist who usually makes my hair stand on end. He’s been supporting the war because he buys into the idea that Bush will make post-Saddam Iraq into an ideal democracy: a kind of Middle East Athens ;). I don’t share his confidence, but I do find myself entirely agreeing of his analysis of where Bush public relations have gone astray, provoking a much more polarized world opinion than was necessary. Once again, the most interesting point in the column is where the motive for war is discussed: _" Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice ? but it’s a legitimate choice. It’s because he is undermining the U.N., it’s because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it’s because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it’s because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won’t keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction."_ And this, mind you, is from someone who has fairly consistenly supported the war. Once again, all the imminent threat rhetoric we’ve been spoon-fed is just so much baby food that our media allows to be served, even though important supporters such as Blair and Friedman don’t even buy it themselves. The hard questions _are never asked_. Almost as bad (although not addressed by Friedman) is the insincere humanitarianism into which Blair has recently lapsed, and which Bush (in the special form of his “evil” rhetoric) has been pumping out all along. None of this is ever “cross-examined.” Imagine this question: “Mr Bush, since you’re so interested in human rights, what is your plan for helping out in \” Yet people here in the US do perceive these things and I think they really resent this kind of massaging: which is precisely why they don’t bother to vote! (Something which is just fine for Bush since low turnout is good for Republicans.) By contrast, the Paxman interview was harsh and had me feeling for Tony Blair. But how preferable to the soundbites we get, the uncriticized and unquestioned simplifications and obfuscations that allow Bush and many others to speak in a kind of Newspeak. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/millions-rally-against-war-is-that-reason-enough-to-delay-or-stand-down/155416.md?page=9)