Originally Posted by roachboy

that comparison only works at the most superficial of levels.
for example, almost everything that the protestors---with the exception of pacifists, who oppose war on principle---were mobilized over turned out to be correct. so there was, in fact, information at the base of the protests. you might not agree with them ideologically, but even a conservative cannot at this point reasonably deny that the war against iraq was launched for reasons that had fuck all to do with what the public was told.
in fact, were the rightwing protests not getting such an inordinate amount of airtime on cable infotainment outlets this week, you might have heard about tom ridge's book about his tenure with heimat security in which he outlines a number of situation in which he was pressured to issue bogus "terror alerts"...

in this case, powerclown, there is almost nothing in the way of coherent opposition to obama's plan--partly due to tactical blunders on the administration's part--partly due to the sources of this agitation, the demographic to which they are speaking, the ways in which they address that demographic and so forth.

the sad thing is that the debate could easily have gone otherwise. i don't see why people require patently false memes to be opposed to it. there are arguments to be made, really. and they should be made. but they aren't being made.

but the folk who aren't making arguments sure are getting a shit-ton of press.
remember how the protests against the bushwar were treated?
o wait--maybe you can't because you sure as hell didn't see them on tv.
funny how that works in the "liberal" press.