Glenn Reynolds and Oxblog think I got a little excessive yesterday with my posting on the editorial of the New York Times. I’m not entirely sure why. Of course the Times’ editors are arguing what they genuinely believe is in the interests of the country – and they will continue to do so once the war has started. I never suggested otherwise. But I do think – and I’ve thought from the beginning of this conflict – that we will be extremely lucky not to experience a deep domestic divide in the context of wartime. By domestic war, I simply mean a deep domestic fight over the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. That’s a wrenching experience I hope won’t happen. But in many ways, it already has. To take one simple example: has there ever been a case when a former president has actually publicly undermined a sitting president at a critical time in U.N. diplomacy, essentially advising critical foreign governments to balk at America’s requests on the eve of a war? If someone knows of a precedent for Jimmy Carter’s op-ed, please let me know.
“NOT AS MANY AS BUSH”: On a more minor front, I was walking the beagle on Saturday in my local D.C. park and stumbled across the pretty-in-pink “Women For Peace” demo. The demonization of the president was far more evident than any criticism of Saddam Hussein. In the few conversations I managed to have without losing my cool, I asked some of the demonstrators whether they were aware of how many people Saddam Hussein had killed in his short time on earth. “Not as many as Bush,” came one reply. “America is the true terrorist nation,” another opined. Now I am second to no-one in defending these people’s right to say whatever they believe, and it was a beautiful day for a feisty demonstration. But what can one make of the arguments one hears? Maybe it’s because I’m surrounded by these sentiments, but it’s hard not to wonder what these people will say or do once this particular phase of the war actually gets under way.
ANGER AND FRIVOLITY: And what was with the pink? Are we going to have color-coordinated demos now? I gleaned that the pinkness was some sort of feminist statement – but isn’t the association of women with pretty and inoffensive colors the opposite of a feminist statement? And then a friend forwarded me a first hand reported email from the march. Get a load of this:
Everybody assembled at Malcolm X Park and then marched down 16th street to the White House. I marched with a contingent of local anarchist friends who had formed up the “F.A.G. Bloc.” I spent most of the march carrying one end of a banner that read: “FISTS ARE 4 FUCKING, NOT FOR FIGHTING.” We also had signs that read “MASTURBATE FOR PEACE” and my favorite, “TIT CLAMPS NOT WAR CAMPS.” We were joined at points by the radical cheerleader bloc … If we’re going to have rallies and marches like this, I think this style is the way to go. ;-)
What does one say about this – except that some part of our culture doesn’t even begin to know how to grapple with grave matters of peace and war, life and death?
The Dish 