The way that these protesters were carrying around flag-draped coffins to stick in the faces of wounded soldiers (many of whom lost friends and suffer from survivor's guilt) just screams classy discourse.

Don't these people have jobs or some way to actually contribute to society?

Can't find anything on these Walter Reed protests anywhere but via the link Eric provided, which is a little strange, I guess. But here's from a WaPo story on one in 2003 with quotes from protesting vets on why they were doing what they were doing:

"Veterans assembled outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District yesterday for a Veterans Day service unlike most in the region -- to draw attention to the wounded GIs they say are hidden casualties of an unjust war in Iraq.

Their numbers were small and their voices soft. Waving U.S. flags and wearing Army jackets decorated with peace symbol pins, about 30 veterans and their supporters rallied outside the black iron gates of Walter Reed. They stood in the chilly morning wind on a busy stretch of Georgia Avenue NW, on a concrete plaza just off the sidewalk in front of a hospital sign.

Bob Robey, an 82-year-old World War II veteran, said there was nothing ironic about being a veteran for peace. "We are a group of people who have seen war, who have suffered in war, and we want to see wars stopped," said the Wheaton resident. "Patriotism to too many people means pushing against any enemy with all the force we have. It's not unpatriotic to be a peacemaker."

The purpose of the rally, organizers said, was to demonstrate the veterans' opposition to the war and occupation in Iraq, to protest cutbacks in veterans' programs and to highlight the growing number of wounded U.S. soldiers. The Pentagon reports that nearly 2,300 soldiers have been wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and hundreds of them have been treated at Walter Reed, the nation's largest military hospital.

"We are not going to let them be an invisible cost of the war," said Patrick McCann, 51, a Prince George's County high school teacher and member of Veterans for Peace, the activist group that sponsored the all-day vigil. McCann, who served in the Air Force in the early 1970s, said the Pentagon and White House want to keep the wounded out of the public eye to avoid losing support for the occupation of Iraq..."

""[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke"

I hope Ms. Burke also thinks that anti-abortion protesters should not protest in front of abortion clinics by the same logic...

I thought of that, Dave, but an abortion clinic is the actual location where the activity pro-lifers oppose takes place. A similar tactic for anti-war protesters would be to demonstrate at the White House, the Pentagon, and at military contractors like Lockheed Martin.

I hear ya, Eric, but Ms. Burke did say that the place to protest policy was in Washington DC. I guess the difference is that some anti-abortionists are protesting against people who have and provide abortions as well as against the policy. Actually, I think the better analogy to that as far as anti-war protesters would be if they protested in Iraq, which might be a bit tricky for them. I see some other similarities in that the anti-abortion tactic of having pictures of aborted fetuses on signs, to quote some earlier sarcasm, also 'screams classy discourse'.

Actually, I think the better analogy to that as far as anti-war protesters would be if they protested in Iraq

Remember the volunteer "human shields"? They changed their minds once they realized they were not going to be placed at schools, hospitals, or other humanitarian sites, but rather strategically useful sites such as power plants.

BTW, JohnS, if you Google "walter reed" protest, you'll find numerous references to this weekly demonstration.

The protesters are interfering with the Walter Reed patients' recovery. Coming off the battlefield isn't just any other case of recovering from serious injury. Armed conflict is a traumatic experience, even for those who trained for it, and (as someone pointed out on a talk radio program - can't remember which one) some of these patients have lost comrades and are grappling with "survivor's guilt." Listening to a bunch of Tokyo Roses is not helpful.

In support of what JohnS was saying, it sure sounds like it's less an "anti-war" rally so much as an "anti-war-where-the-administration-doesn't-support-the-troops-in-the-field-or-the-veterans-at-home". This, from the website of one of the main organizing groups, seems to be the focal issue of the vigil:

"Even after their stealth arrival at Walter Reed, soldiers must begin a bureaucratic battle to obtain sufficient disability benefits to provide an adequate quality of life. Initial determinations of military pension amounts (10-20% of salary, for example), made by the Army's Medical Review Board, are often inadequate, and must be appealed to the Veterans Administration (which, to its credit, often increases the lifetime disability payment).

We also vigil to protest ongoing cuts in the Veterans Administration budget made by the very same administration that sends these soldiers to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, the FY05 budget institutes a new health care enrollment fee and increases prescription drug co-pays for middle-income veterans. The VA budget is not fully funded, failing by more than $2.6 billion to fully fund quality veterans? health care. Despite strongly lobbying by veterans organizations, the Bush administration fails to recognize veterans as an extension of the costs of war. Other FY05 budget cuts in educational, vocational and adult education, and family support programs also directly impact veterans and their families."
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=229

It was a slow blogging day because you shut down the post I was commenting on. ;-)

Was that a first?

Weren't some of you critical of my characterizations of the Left as anti-American a week or so ago? I love saying I told you so. I be Balta is on his way out there right now. He supports the troops not the war too, you know.

Since when is protesting Anti-American?

Prostesting isn't un-American, it's just silly, classless and embarassing. Be an adult. Protests are for the first Tuesday in November.

Finlay, are you saying that you don't think it's possible to support the troops and not the war?

Dave,

You got it. Once the fighting starts either get on the home team's side or get out of the stadium. Last time I checked we were still a representative democracy and went to war with Iraq under Congressional authorization. I'm an American and I want America to triumph in every endeavour it undertakes.
It just puzzles me to no end that people can actually want to disrespect the soldiers they claim to support by not supporting their mission. Don't they know that we will be a laughingstock if we pull out of Iraq before the mission is complete. Ask a frenchman what that feels like. How did you feel the day our embassy was stormed in Iran? How did you feel when the Palestinians cheered 9/11? If you can stomach that, I guess running from Iraq is something you can stomach as well. I have no use for people like that on my team.

I can't tell you how disgusting I think this is.

You would think that however unfathomable it is that there are people out there who are too thick to see that history is repeating itself (yet again) and that the United States of America is fighting against the scourage of the planet ALONE, (yet again) so much so that they would make these Michael-moorish accusations about the obstensibility of President Bush's arguments to go to war in Iraq...

Even though I've come to accept that these people exist AND have a right to be heard, you would still think that they would have the decency, the HUMANITY, not to spit in our hero soldiers' faces by literally marching up and down the streets under their noses, literally outside their bedroom windows.

I'm disgusted.

Bethany

------------------

Keep the liberals away from Hetracil!
http://www.hetracil.com

Don't they know that we will be a laughingstock if we pull out of Iraq before the mission is complete.

That's what our troops are dying for in Iraq, our national pride, so we won't be a laughingstock? As for "mission is complete," I thought that happened right before Bush landed on the aircraft carrier.

Finlay,
I'm an American too and I want America to succeed at every *worthwhile* endeavor it undertakes, and I never agreed with our military adventure in Iraq, along with the vast majority of people/nations on this planet. I don't believe that in a democracy that if our leaders make bad decisions that everyone should just goose-step to their beat, especially in this case where many of the justifications for going to war in the first place turned out to be just plain not true. And if you are of my opinion, then it is just as disrespectful to our soldiers to support a war that puts them and Iraqi civilians (remember them?) in harm's way. I can think of no better way to support the troops than to bring them home in one piece as soon as possible.

I see your reference to Palestinians and 9/11 and Iran, and assume that you think this is some kind of payback. How I felt when 9/11 was cheered and when the embassy was stormed in Iran are irrelevant because I don't think that America has always acted in the most noble way, despite how we view and sell ourselves. And despite the incredible tragedy of 9/11, we've inflicted 5-10 times as much destruction in Iraq, and spent an obscene amount of this nation's resources to do it.

Which one of the 9/11 planners/bombers was from Iraq again? When did Iraq last attack the United States? Did you support the Vietnam war/folly all the way until 1975 when we 'ran' from there?

I support the troops in that I believe they are acting even more honorably because they've been put into a place they never should have, and I think they should be given the best weapons and armor available. And they should be very well compensated for their commitment, especially when they are veterans. I think whenever we resort to going to war, with some noticeable exceptions like WW II where we were actually defending ourselves, we've already failed in a way.

"I have no use for people like that on my team. "

Well, thankfully, you're not the coach.

Bethany, do you have a specific example of a protester specifically protesting or saying something against the troops themselves (not against the war)? What's Michael-moorish about pointing out for instance that there were no WMDs in Iraq when WMDs were specically given as the need to go in there immediately?

Bethany, do you have a specific example of a protester specifically protesting or saying something against the troops themselves (not against the war)?

I do.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8744

Alan K. Henderson-

I followed your link to the FrontPage article. I saw the photo of the awful banner reportedly created by two very disturbed individuals and (according to Frontpage) displayed at a peace march in San Fransisco in March of 2003. I denounce the message on the banner and it's creators.

According to the accompanying article, one of those disturbed individuals is a writer who goes by the name, Keith Sorel, the other gave his name as "Mike" and wore a mask. I checked out some of Mr Sorel's writings. He is a fringe nut. In one of his articles (FROM MUNIS TO MEESE: Left Communism or State Department Surrealism?) he describes himself:

"In 1983 I became involved in sustained political activity outside of conventional leftism. I was a member of an anarchist group,``Workers Emancipation,'' which was nominally focused on the class struggle..."

Conveniently, Mike couldn’t allow his real name or any other personal information to be published because he’s "going through a background check."

Besides it's ugly message, I find something else a bit disturbing about the banner photo. It is uncredited, and agitpropmaster David Horowitz's FrontPage does not say where they got it. References to the banner/rally appear all oner the internet, but only on right wing blogs. According to Accuracy in Media, "This photo circulated on the Internet but we didn't see it in the major media." I would guess that the reason is because legitimate news organizations could not verify it's authenticity.

And if you are of my opinion, then it is just as disrespectful to our soldiers to support a war that puts them and Iraqi civilians (remember them?) in harm's way. I can think of no better way to support the troops than to bring them home in one piece as soon as possible.

Dave,

Can't you see that people of your ilk are COSTING troops lives in Iraq. This is a highly connected would and it is naive to think that the terrorists in Iraq don't see all of the dissent and feel bolstered. They keep up the fight becuase of people like you. They think if they can keep it up long enough people will start to listen to people like you. If we had a united front, they would be defeated sooner.

"This is a highly connected would and it is naive to think that the terrorists in Iraq don't see all of the dissent and feel bolstered. They keep up the fight becuase of people like you."

Well, I think it's naive to think that the terrorists in Iraq really care all that much at all that there are anti-war protests in the U.S. I would think if a terrorist was inclined to be motivated by something like that, what Americans thought would be inconsequential compared to the fact that, again, the majority of people in other nations thought this was a bad idea. I'm sure the reasons motivating Iraqi terrorists are varied, but I'd guess Muslim fanaticism and the fact that we invaded and are occupying their country might be up there. The terrorists are bolstered by the fact that we are there; do you think people who are willing to commit suicide bombings would give up if 100% of Americans were behind this war?

This is a tough topic, because at this point, I'm not advocating that we leave immediately. When this war started I didn't agree with it, but now that we're there and because Iraq is such a mess at this point, we have a responsibility to try and 'fix' it as best we can. But just because I admit that we need to be there now and that I support our troops doesn't mean that all of a sudden I'm not against the war.

Thanks for the link, Alan; that banner is definitely low. I don't really consider it on the 'spit-in-our-hero-soldiers-faces' level, or even near the level of the 'baby-killer' taunts thrown at our Vietnam vets by some on their return, but it's not defensible.

Eric,

Your "ilk" comments are really starting to get annoying.

It is a way to broadly dismiss people in a very uncharitable way, sort of the way Finlay does. Are you part of Finlay's "ilk"?

Eric-

"Can't you see that people of your ilk are COSTING troops lives in Iraq. This is a highly connected would and it is naive to think that the terrorists in Iraq don't see all of the dissent and feel bolstered. They keep up the fight becuase of people like you. They think if they can keep it up long enough people will start to listen to people like you. If we had a united front, they would be defeated sooner."

I'm 53 and remember that exact argument used during the Vietnam era, long after the American people began to question the rationale for that war. (ie: "Vietnam is a nasty place to fight. But there are no neat and tidy battlefields in the struggle for freedom; there is no 'good' place to die. And it is far better to fight in Vietnam - on China's doorstep - than fight some years hence in Hawaii, on our own frontiers."-War historian, H.l. Baldwin in the NY Times in 1965. "Better Dead Than Red" was the bumper sticker version of that argument.)

The Vietnam debacle taught our military a lesson that our current civilian leadership promptly forgot. In 1984, Caspar Weinberger clearly spelled out those lessons:

*Either the United States' or its close allies' vital national interests had to be at risk;
* The war had to be fought "wholeheartedly, with the clear intention of winning";
* We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives;
* We must constantly reassess whether the use of force is necessary and appropriate;
* There must be a "reasonable assurance" of Congressional and public support;
* Force should be used only as a last resort.

I would say that our civilian leadership "failed miserably" in following those objectives, especially the crucial * We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives; which have STILL not been fully spelled out. Thus, this was a war programmed for failure, and those vets (are they 'ilk' too) demonstrating at Walter Reed probably know that better than anybody.

"Your "ilk" comments are really starting to get annoying.

It is a way to broadly dismiss people in a very uncharitable way, sort of the way Finlay does. Are you part of Finlay's "ilk"?"

Joel,

Comments?? I made one comment. You seem to be confusing me with someone else if you think I have been making many comments.

JohnS,

"We should employ decisive force in the pursuit of clearly defined political and military objectives; which have STILL not been fully spelled out."

I agree that we should employ decisive force, and I don't think we have. We have been too worried about be PC. But I cannot agree that the political and military objectives have not been fully spelled out. That is a lie that has been spouted by the left. Explain to me how providing security until the Iraqi military is trained is not a military objective. How is getting a constitution passed and holding elections not a political objective. How can either of those objective be spelled out any clearer. Do you want and exact number of Iraqi's that need to be trained. Do you think President Bush should get on TV and say we will leave Iraqi after 200,000 troops are trained?

Dave,

I absolutely believe that the terrorists in Iraq pay attention to what is going on here. That is something we should have learned for Vietnam. The North Veitnamies have stated that they kept holding on becasue of the anti-war movement in America. They would have given up, but they held on hoping the Anti-war movement would force the withdraw of US troops.

We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right.

Eric-

You manageed to completely ignore the other lessons Weinberger raised, and your assertion that the North Vietnamese would have given up if not for the American anti-war movement is prepostrous. However, let's please not fight that war all over again, shall we?

As for a clearly defined political goal in Iraq, that was to rid Iraq of it's weapons of mass destruction. Everything else has been made up as we went along, as there were no plans in place for an insurgency. The WH was called on that early on by influential Republicans as well as Dems.

I'm sure that the insurgents are also paying attention to the current Iraq debate within the Republican party as to whether we should stay the course, gradually withdraw trops, or just get out now. I would assume that you consider that just as demoralizing to our troops as you consider anti-war protests.

Finally, your comment, " We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right" is a little strange in the context of the Iraq War. There are certainly Jihadists in Iraq now, but most of the violence directed at American troops is from Sunni insurgents. Look for more violence between Sunni nationalists vs Shiite separatists. Sadr is a nationalist and has declared that occupying forces must go for that to ever happen.

I suspect Sadr may be on to something. I do think one of the overriding neocon goals of this war was the breakup of Iraq along sectarian and ethnic lines. Iraq is then removed as a regional threat (to our ally, Israel) and the smaller states become Israel's satellites, to our and Israel's benefit. (An autonomous Shiite region in the south also happens to benefit Iran, but that's another story.)

If the Federalists continue to press for their constitution, excluding the Sunnis from consideration, I fear our troops will be trapped in the middle of an out and out, full scale civil war.

Eric,

I was a little unclear in the last part of my comment , regarding your statement ,
"We also have to remember that UBL said the US is a paper tiger, and his supporters are looking for any sign that he is right.". I should have prefaced the rest of my remarks by saying that you are confusing our fighting an Iraqi insurgency with the "War on Terror," directed at UBL. They are not one and the same.

The fact that some Americans do not support having our troops in Iraq, does not mean we do not support our ongoing fight against UBL's al-Qaeda.

Eric,

On 8/25, on the post you shut down, it was Gregory and his ilk. (I wasn't sure if I was being honored or dishonored to be or not to be in Gregory's ilk.)

On 8/27 it was Dave and his ilk.

That's two "ilk" comments in a short span of time.

I'm not declaring civil war on you, just expressing a concern because I thought the comment I made on the post you shut down was fair-minded and not out of line. I felt, however, that the net had been cast my way with the "ilk" comment even though my name wasn't used specifically. Same for we Iraq war opponents "ilk" that you seem to be accusing of causing deaths. I think that is over the line. That's really no different than Mrs. Sheehan telling President Bush "you killed my son."

At least I had the balls to put on a damn uniform for a while.

Hey Joel, I might be wrong, but I'm not sure if 'Eric' is the same as 'Eric Seymour' on this thread, which is who I think shut down the post you're referring to. I'm not sure, but there might be two different Erics posting here; it's 'Eric Seymour' in the early posts, and now it's 'Eric'.
Not that it changes the points you're making.

My humble apologies to Eric Seymour. Trying to be a speed reader has its downside. Maybe I'll just be red-faced for a month or two.

While we're busy linking to proresters with nasty signs, try this one on for size.

All too often, the tendency of some is to attack the messenger, not the message...

Joel,

No problem, man. And, for the record, you are most definitely not included in Gregory Travis' "ilk." Those guys took an innocuous post about how the job market has been doing well for the past year and a half and turned it into a partisan argument. Your comments, on the other hand, are always welcome and you don't comment before reading and understanding the post.