More wacky wartime fun!!!

[Dooby]

Rather than post the whole Washington Post Article, I'll post this summary. This was similar to the article that I posted from the Dallas Observer a while back. Basically, if I were an active participant in anti-war protests, I would be ashamed of myself.
************************************************** *********
STOPPING THE WAR: The Washington Post story chronicles the braintrust of the antiwar movement as they prepare for more demonstrations and work to organize acts of civil disobedience against U.S. targets around the world.

There are three paragraphs worth a closer look. Here's the first:

Many of the organizers confess that they were stunned by the size and scope of the demonstrations two weeks ago. "A big part of our meeting was about digesting the shock of the earthquake that was February 15," said Larry Holmes, an organizer in New York for International ANSWER, one of the U.S. groups organizing the rallies. "We were just as surprised as everyone else. But you're seeing a new sense of confidence among organizations. People don't want this war, and they're giving us a mandate to do whatever it takes to stop it."

The fact that the antiwar movement now feels it has a "mandate" is just one of many examples of the price we are now paying for continued delay. The longer we wait the greater likelihood things will begin to unravel. We should act now and mend fences later.

It's clear that Bush's instinct has always been for quick, decisive action, but he succumbed to Colin Powell and the siren song of the United Nations - which was still probably the right thing to do. As a result, however, while we have been playing games with France in the Security Council for the last four months antiwar forces around the world have grown.

But now let's read the other two paragraphs from the Washington Post story on the genesis of the antiwar movement:

The organizers say the February rallies were first agreed upon at a small strategy session in Florence in November. But their roots go back to the days just after Sept. 11, 2001, when activists say they began meeting to map out opposition to what they anticipated would be the U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

In Britain, according to organizer John Rees, several hundred activists first got together the weekend after Sept. 11. Most were from the hard core of the British left -- the Socialist Workers Party, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-capitalist organization Globalized Resistance, along with Labor Party legislators Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway. Within weeks, they had combined with representatives from two more important elements -- Britain's growing Muslim community and its militant trade unions. By October they had a name: the Stop the War Coalition.

So, according to the Post, while smoke was still pouring from the ruins of the WTC towers you had socialists, anti-capitalists, and the anti-nuke crowd (in other words, people who despise America) combining with the Muslim community and representatives from its "militant" trade unions to form the core of the movement.

Clearly the antiwar movement has spread well beyond this original group and now encompasses large chunks of people who aren't anti-American, only antiwar. Still, it matters a great deal who is oraginizing the protests. I don't absolve the "true" antiwar protesters for taking part in a march organized by American-hating groups any more than I'd absolve someone who marched in a legitimate protest of immigration laws if it was sponsored by the KKK.