—President Richard M. Nixon

Back in 1969, on both Oct. 15 and Nov. 15 to be exact, millions of people marched and demonstrated for an end to the Vietnam War in the Mobilization and the Moratorium, respectively, against the war.

The day after the Nov. 15 Moratorium, Nixon responded by saying he was not going to let a small minority dictate United States policy just because they were loud. (In office less than a year, he was still letting Vice President Spiro Agnew do his name-calling for him.)

Nixon insisted there was a "silent majority" that supported the war and his goal of achieving "peace with honor." By the end of 1969, however, that majority was getting smaller, though it would be a few years and thousands more casualties before he would "be affected by" the growing opposition.

Thirty-three years and three months later, President Bush was faced with far greater numbers — millions worldwide — demonstrating against his administration's intent to attack Iraq and overthrow its government. But he, too, said neither the message nor the number of messengers was going to change his mind.

"I respectfully disagree," he said, after the mammoth demonstrations on Feb. 15 and 16. End of discussion, at least in the White House.

If the president figures he has a silent majority out there, he's wrong. He might have had a majority a few months back, but no longer. The tide has changed. I know people who not too long ago would have endorsed a nuking of Baghdad. Now much of that kind of thinking is gone.

———

I hesitate to put it this way, but the president missed his chance to attack Iraq and get away with it. He waited too long. With a boost from the growing anti-war movement, ordinary citizens now are seriously questioning the government's motivation, why it wants to act even without U.N. support and just what kind of war and aftermath we'd be getting into.

With the junta huddled in the West Wing, many senators and congressmen were out during winter break last week hearing from constituents. And while people were worried about the economy, energy and health care, it was the question of Iraq to which they wanted answers (probably because nobody in the White House is talking about those other issues). And since the vast majority of lawmakers gave Bush the OK to wage war, they faced some tough grilling.

Unfortunately, those opposed to an Iraq war, both early on and lately, don't have enough votes in Congress to force a vote to renege on the war powers granted to the president. Really too bad, when you think about what negative course of world history they could change.

One group tried to alter that course in court. A group of military personnel, along with relatives of people in the armed forces and six members of the House filed suit, claiming that Congress had abdicated its war powers to the executive branch when it gave Bush the go-ahead to attack Iraq.

But wouldn't you know, a federal judge this week declined to issue a temporary restraining order to stop the war, calling it a political issue, not a legal one. First it was a court that declared Bush president, now it's a court that says it's OK for Congress to transfer to him its authority to declare war .

———

More and more it appears that the president's description of an "axis of evil" during his 2002 State of the Union speech was a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the time it just seemed to be more name-calling, rather than the basis for the foreign policy that has since come out of the White House.

You know, if an authority figure persistently tells misbehaving little boys they are evil sinners, they eventually will be. Even a simple psychology suggests, instead, that authorities work to integrate such miscreants into the group of "good" children rather than alienate them further with aggression and name-calling.

By ostracizing Iraq, Iran and North Korea to the dark side of the playground while telling stories about how evil they are, the government has brought the world to the edge of war on numerous fronts.

The question, however, is whether the president has the courage to adopt a new strategy, now that so many good children don't see the need to single out one of the misbehaving kids for capital punishment. So far, it doesn't look good, since the government is beginning to mistreat those pleading for mercy and bribe others to go along with the violence.

We must relentlessly remind the government that the problem can be solved without resorting to war. Once so many nations and peoples of the world move to the side of peace and the United States stands alone, the president may, respectfully, "be affected by it."

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at (607) 441-7217 or cary@thedailystar.com.