British MP George Galloway implored the crowd to "stand against the war criminals, Tony Blair and George Bush." "Let George Bush go" to Iraq, declared International ANSWER spokesman Brian Becker. "Let his children go. Let them see if the Iraqi people greet them as liberators, or as imperialist occupiers." Johnson-era attorney general Ramsey Clark told those gathered that the war in Iraq was built on "deliberate lies," and that Haiti's Aristide would make a much better president of the United States than George Bush. "Abu Ghraib shows the heart of American respect for human dignity," Clark said.

Tens of thousands marched on the White House Saturday, making the event one of the largest protests since commencement of the war in Iraq. I spent the day talking with anti-war protestors outside the White House, on the Mall, and in the streets of Washington, DC.

The words of those on the listening side of the podium echoed the words of those on the speaking side. "It was clear that Bush doesn't care because it was mainly poor people who were put out of their homes," opined Pennsylvania activist Lorie Polansky about the president's reaction to Hurricane Katrina. "It was none of his friends." "Bush does whatever helps his big contributors," Jonathan Steed told me. "There's no accountability on his part. He just does whatever they tell him to do." "Basically," a first-time marcher explained to me, "the Republicans are greedy, racist pigs."

While the stated reason for the gathering is the war in Iraq, those gathered cited many issues--the Florida election controversy, SUVs, corporate influence in politics, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina--that motivate them. "Bush Is a National Disaster," "9/11--Truth Now (Hint: It Was an Inside Job)," and "There's No Liberty Without PRIVACY, My Constitutional Right" were a few of the disparate signs held up by protestors. The usual suspects peopled the ranks of the International ANSWER/United for Peace and Justice-organized event. But a greater percentage of enthusiastic neophytes turned out than could be seen at past protests, which had been dwindling in numbers since early 2003. Talking with activists, and seeing more of them in the streets, provided testimony to the effectiveness of Cindy Sheehan's campaign against the war, which has clearly reenergized the anti-war Left.

Unlike the larger, prewar protests, today's event benefits--one would think--from a public dissatisfied with, and in opposition to, the war. Amid the colorful political theater of imitation George Bushes, the radical cheerleaders, and thirteen-foot high protestors on stilts, the event conveyed a grayer, more effective message than previous events. Rows of military-issue leather boots, graveyard crosses, families of soldiers serving in the war, and a chain of 8 1/2 by 11 pictures of the more than 1,900 Americans who have died in the war--longer than seven football fields shouted a demonstrator--imparted the point that Americans are dying in a far-off land in a war based on since-discredited presumptions. It's unclear if this serious point will reach the public through the distractions of inflammatory banners, Communist literature tables, and out-there speaker rhetoric. Though the war is unpopular with a majority of Americans, the anti-war movement is unpopular with a larger majority of Americans.

Speakers and protestors hoped for an end to the war in Iraq and the impeachment of George W. Bush. Protest veterans were not so optimistic. "I don't think it will have an influence," said Matt Geiger of the event. "I'm here because there's no place else to vent your frustration."

It's too bad the anti-war right doesn't stage *something*.

Well Dan, I wasn't in the crowd, but I did switch back and forth between the President's Cup golf on NBC and C-Span. From what I saw, the most important point in your latest commentray was that this rag-tag collection of moronic rabble can only succeed in driving more people away from their cause (if, given the incredible number of disparate "causes", one single focus could be determined).

They were for the most part incoherent, incomprehensible, and reprehensible.

Ahh, but they were against the war...so Dan is all for them.

Those people care about as much for the slain soldiers as they do about the paper upon which they print their heinous anti-American propaganda. The fallen are only important insofar as they can be used to further the anti's agenda.

Oh...but boxers are heros because they risk their lives for...money and fame. Now THAT's heroic.

Obi Juan, first, if the pro-American Right were to ever stage such a demonstration, the MSM wouldn't cover it. Second, as most of them actually have jobs and commitments, it's significantly more difficult than for the professional agitators and "activists" on the Left.

Curtis, I agree with your assessment of the anti-war crowds true level of caring and support for the troops. Having experienced the venom and hate spewed by the this same group on ingrates in the 70's, I can only conclude that Cindy Sheehan, while genuinely grieving for her lost son, and the vast majority of these folks have no regard whatsoever for "The Troops". What they HAVE is an understanding that if they DON'T mouth the right platitudes, the alienation most of the country feels for them would only increase geometrically. Thus, they oppose the war but support the troops.

If anyone else out there listened to the unfocused ramblings that the likes of Jesse Jackson, Jessica Lange, Cindy S and others uttered yesterday, I would love for them to explain what Puerto Rican independence, overthrow of the Phillipino government, the "plight" of the Palestinian terrorists, the protection of the North Koreans and other such clearly connected subjects had to do with an anti-war rally.

It's said you can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep. Well, since Ramsey Clark, George Galloway, Jesse Jackson, Jand Fonda and so many others of these "peace lovers" adore and support the likes of Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro and yes, Uncle Ho, that tells me all I need to know about 'em!

Doesn't mean they don't have the right to say whatever they like, but I for one ain't buyin' whatever they're sellin'!

Dan, I just reread a portion of your commentary on the anti-war protests, and a phrase caught my eye. You wrote "Americans are dying in a far-off land in a war based on since-discredited presumptions". I know of only one apparently discredited assumption, that being Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs at the time of the U.S.-led invasion. Two questions: first, what was the other "discredited" assumption. Second, if the ultimate liberation of a sorely oppressed people and the elimination of clear and present danger to the tenuous stability of the Middle East was not sufficient cause for military action, what then justified U.S. involvement in Europe during WWII?

Two questions: first, what was the other "discredited" assumption.

That they would welcome us with open arms. Or that they would welcome liberal democracy.

I'm going to preempt something you are going to say with this:
The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

Thom, in World War II, Germany declared war on us and Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor. I'm glad you concede, like the president does, that the pre-war WMD assumptions were wrong. An additional pre-war assumption, repeatedly embraced by the vice president, was the not very subtle suggestion that Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Calling the failure to uncover any WMD an incorrect pre-war assumption really trivializes the long, obnoxious, propaganda campaign that led us to war. The incorrect pre-war assumptions were that we would be greeted as liberators, that Iraq's oil revenues would finance our occupation, that we would be down to 30,000 troops by now, and that it would trigger a democratic revolution across the Middle East. WMD wasn't an incorrect presumption, it was the casus belli, the raison d'etre for us skirting over international law, dropping Osama from our sights, and sending thousands of Americans -- and Iraqis -- to an early grave. WMD was the cause of the war. Without WMD our invasion and occupation of Iraq is unjustified, unnecessary, and meaningless.

People on the Left are kooks. But the people behind the war in Iraq are kooks with guns. So who's more dangerous?

The left is so terribly frustrating. They can never have the good sense as a group to maintain any focus at all. A middle America type war protest could be very effective right now with opinion polls indicating a clear shift against Bush. But in order to form such a movement the organizers have to be sane.

Curtis, I read your arguments against Dan's use of the term "heroism" in the earlier post and you the insult you are taking from it seems too exaggerated. To be heroic in the old classical sense of Homer is to "be like the gods," that is, to be exceptional for some attribute(s). This is why kids do look up to their fathers and even athletes as "heroes"; it is a pretty normal impulse to recognize someone else's "exceptionalism" in that manner. The issue of the relative merits of different people or weighing different groups particular claims to being considered "heroic" is another issue entirely. Sure, if "heroism" simply means "risking death for others" then cops, soldiers, firemen, etc., are the only heros going. But I don't think perspective is immediately lost when heroism is regarded in more expansive terms like Flynn is doing.

The paradigmatic case of heroism will always be the ones you suggest but those cases are not diminished by recognizing the impressive and exceptional efforts made by humans in non-life-risking-for-others endeavors.