In 1967, my father, a Republican, wouldn't join me in protesting the Viet Nam war. He didn't come along until we protested Nixon's bombing of Cambodia in 1971 or '72.
The problem this time is no less ambiguous. Are we justified in attacking another country? Is it for the reasons stated, or is there some ulterior motive? Can we trust our own government?
My 14 year old daughter informed me tonight that she and her friends were planning to go to the protest this Saturday. They have canceled plans to go to the movies.
Tomorrow morning, I'll be downloading and printing flyers for her on the efficient equipment at work. I'll be arranging transportation for them so that I can go with them.
I won't be leading on Saturday. I'll be listening. I'll avoid giving long, boring history lectures. I'll answer questions briefly if I'm asked.
We will probably have nothing to fear from the police this time, unlike the old days. They were fairly mild mannered during the most recent protest here.
The fear in Washington these days is of the sniper who has killed 10 and critically wounded 3 people in the last 3 weeks. I won't let my daughter go outside for more than a few minutes for any reason. But we'll face that fear together on Saturday.
Our odds will be 1 in 5 million (the population of the Washington Metro area). The odds for anyone in Iraq will be worse. The odds for anyone in any army will be worse. The odds for civilians in Baghdad will be a lot worse.
Mary McGrory accuses Bush et al. of hiding the Korea story until the Congressional resolution passed.
WSJ confirms that the administration knew about North Korea's nukes weeks ago:
"When we told North Korea a couple of weeks ago that we knew that they were participating in the enrichment of uranium, which was in violation of a number of agreements to include [the 1994 pact], they first denied it, then admitted it and said, 'and therefore the agreement is nullified,' " Mr. Powell said on ABC's This Week.