Who said protests don’t work? And war crimes trials of Bush & cronies
This is two stories wrapped into one: their common thread is the value of protesting and the dogged pursuit of the truth.
First Story: There is a widespread feeling among those that march or protest, that their efforts don’t really matter, that things continue to move in the same direction with or without their protests. But, in fact, protests do work, it’s just many protesters, especially those new to the effort, would like to see an instantaneous victory which seldom happens (but see the Bristol story below). Yet, protesting is powerful. The Vietnam war was unraveled by massive protests. Lyndon Johnson decided against running for the presidency in 1968, after hearing daily chants of "hey hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today." The largest protest in history, the protest against the invasion of Iraq, reached an estimated world wide level of 30 million, including a spirited protest at the McMurdo Station in Antarctica. True, Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway, but the magnitude of the pre-war protest forced Bush to zip across Iraq rapidly into Baghdad so he could declare a quick victory ("mission accomplished"), which forced him to cut short the wider bombing levels and destruction that he contemplated. In that case, protests saved some of the destruction of Iraq and it saved lives, both American and Iraqi. At least in the short run. But the news of protest success is always handled in such a way that protesters can’t easily see the impact of their efforts: Fox news labels them as those that want to cut and run. In that case, go read Michael Schwartz’s article in TomDispatch on the Loss of an Imperial Dream , where you can learn more about the impact of protesting and the disintegration of the neocons and the Bush presidency.
Print This Post
