but as I recall, atrios and then dailykos and other were commenting on a Washingtonpost column by jim hoagland with the discussion being around the point whether without a bunch unpatriotic surrender-monkey demonstrators to demonize the war supportors don't really have anything to say other than "stay the course", "we can't give up", blah blah
basically, they need to equate opposition to the war with a cartoon war opponent, if they can't do that they've lost; regardless of how you feel about the war's real or imagined objectives, no rational person could argue it has not been a distaster.
i think there something to that argument, there's a pithy saying in politics that i can't remember right now, but basically the gist of it is "if your opponent is vomiting on camera, don't step in front of it" -- this certainly applies to iraq.
-- adam
On 6/28/05, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Adam Souzis wrote:
>
> >or the little flurry of postings in the blogsphere last week as to
> >whether or not the lack of a visible anti-war movement actually helped
> >turn Americans against the war
>
> Do tell!
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>