Anti-War Protests Target Wounded
So patriotic. So supportive of the troops, right?
The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.”
The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist [Casey Sheehan’s mother’s] vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, “shameless” and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. “[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration,” said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.
“I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone,” Floyd added.
But don’t you dare question their support of the troops. Because it’s very supportive of soldiers to line up mock caskets and remind them of their fellow soldiers that got shot or blown up right next to them. It’s so very supportive to rip open wounds and pour salt on them like that. I often show rape porn on giant outdoor screens just outside group counselling sessions for rape victims. It’s my way of protesting rapists. Sometimes I like to put Bailey’s in the coffee at AA meetings too. Oh, and pictures of dead children on billboards outside the Chidren’s Hostpitals. After all, the evil medical establishment is killing kids and what better way to protest that than to stick those images in the faces of the parents coming and going.
Pure scum. The whole lot of them. And let’s not forget that Code Pink is one of the groups that is in bed with Saint Sheehan of Crawford. That’s a tight, mutually supportive relationship, not just a group that is glomming on to her spotlight.
Who’s this about again? The military personnel or the protesters? I’m no fan of the more radical side of FreeRepublic.com, but in this case...they’re 100% right. The hospital is not the place for scum to peddle their bullshit. Can the wounded maybe have one place where they don’t have to worry about anything but geting well, maybe?
Disrespectful and disgusting, and may every one of those lowlife protesters rot in hell. This is just another piece of evidence that you cannot pretend you support the troops if you don’t support the mission they’re performing. To me, this proves they don;t support the troops, they in fact hate them. Why else would you be so hurtful and disrespectful?
Hat tip: Moorewatcher Sean (as he signed it, a.k.a furious) and another version of the story at Drudge via Wizbang.
Comments
Put yourselves in the enemies’ shoes: Some other country comes along, invades your land and now drives around in military vehicles touting guns. I bet you’d be pissed too. What would change your mind to get on their side?
Quit worrying about what the bad guys think of us. They’re criminals. You think a cop cares if a bank robber likes him? And quit acting like the terrorists represent the entire country of Iraq. That’s Sheehan’s job.
The Iraqi people need to be convinced that they’re better off now while giving up a little power so all of them can be on equal ground.
What power did the people of Iraq give up? They used to have none.
The argument on the left is that you CAN support the troops because they don’t want the troops to die. They want them back here where they’re safe. THAT to them is the ULTIMATE support.
Good thing they didn’t have that kind of support during WWII. I guess it’s meaningless what happens to people in other countries, as long as OUR soldiers are safe.
Have you ever heard that with great power comes great responsibility? How do you think everyone around the world (who’s opinion’s seem to matter so much to you) would think of us if we had the ability, yet did nothing because we were afraid that our soldiers might be hurt. Oh, wait, we do know what they thought, thanks to previous administrations and the cowardly left. They would think that we are a weak-willed people who run at the first sign of trouble. This, then, engenders a feeling of superiority on their part, providing them with the courage to attack us at will, even within our own borders, knowing that we will, yet again, wring our little hands and wonder, yet again, what we did to make them so cross with us.
That is, until someone with some balls finally stands up and says “no more.” You brought the fight to us and, this time, we are not backing down. You are either with us or against us in this. Pretty simple, but pretty effective. Of course, this just infuriates the hand-wringing, cowardly folks who whine about how our children might get hurt, forgetting that these “children” are our soldiers. Sad as it is when they are hurt or killed, that is what they volunteered to do. I’m sure most of them believe that to support and defend their country to be the highest of all possible callings. I’m sure that most here agree wholeheartedly.
So I guess putting the safety of the soldiers before the completion of the mission might be viewed as the ultimate support by some, but, in reality, it is not the kind of support that they need. They need the people’s support of the MISSION, so that it can be completed as quickly and successfully as possible, THEN they can come home. THAT is the ULTIMATE support for the soldiers.
Protestors just don’t like the way this war was handled.
By the way, bullshit. Read some of the quotes by Casey’s mom, Mikey Moore, MoveOn and the rest of the moonbats. It has nothing to do with “We just disagree on how it was handled.” It is all about their blind hatred for GW. Witness their silence in the past when we attacked Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti...... since it was their guy making the calls, even the most vociferous anti-war freaks held their collective noses and said nothing. But because Bush is the one on the Oval Office, they get unhinged about every goddamn thing that his administration tries to accomplish.
Read a few quotes about Social Security that those on the left have made, prior to Bush’s attempts to fix it. (Do your own research. Trust me, it isn’t difficult to find.) They refused to actually do anything about it, but they sure complained enough about “how it was going broke” and “it can’t be saved.” (Does the term “lockbox” ring a bell?) But once Bush comes up with a plan to fix it, the left goes insane, saying that there is nothing wrong and why mess with it if it isn’t broken.
Damn, just compare some of Teddy Kennedy’s comments about recess appointments when Clinton used them and what he says when Bush uses them.
Simple disagreements on execution? I don’t think so.
I want to just make it clear that my post was mostly a “translation” of what I hear from people against the war. Amongst the idiocy there are some legit points that I wanted to see argued. That’s why I worded it the way I did.
ronnie, you DO need to worry about how the terrorists feel in order to change them. It’s not that I think their feelings/actions are justified, but in order to understand their actions you need to understand their thinking...if you sincerely want change.
Violence against people fuels others’ anger (see the L.A. riots). A lot of times it creates more problems than it solves. What a lot of corrupt police get away with in this country is frustrating and the police (and our soldiers) aren’t always in the right. I.e. taking pictures of naked prisoners and giving a thumbs up, blowing up the wrong person’s car/storming the wrong house. Mistakes are made and bad people come to authority but they need to be reamed just like the “regular bad guys.” No cover ups, no pats on the ass.
The people I’m speaking of are those who once had a bit of power. I’m not an Iraq expert but from what I recall there are three warring religious sects. Two like us (the one’s who had no power before) and one doesn’t (the one’s who used to have all the power). Please correct me if I’m wrong (my memory needs to be refreshed/updated).
wiserbud: Pretty much. That’s the feeling of the protestors. They don’t think America should be the world police. We have our own problems and they should be taken care of before spending hundreds of billions of dollars fixing other people’s stuff. Looking at our ever-rising Trillion dollar debt while Congress gives themselves a raise:
In 2006 it will increase $3,100 ( http://tinyurl.com/ctbck )
On Jan. 1, 2003, they took a raise of $4,700.
On Jan. 1, 2002, they took a raise of $4,900.
On Jan. 1, 2001, they took a raise of $3,800.
On Jan. 1, 2000, they took a raise of $4,600.
On Jan. 1, 1998, they took a raise of $3,100.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/7pndm
All the while the debt keeps piling UP UP UP. Don’t you wish you could give yourself a raise wherever you work while your company is losing money?
I find it hard to argue with that...as selfish as it may seem. The war MAY fix future problems but their are PRESENT problems that should be fixed. Money better spent/saved and more American lives saved.
As far as their silence, there had to be SOME protestors out there. Perhaps it’s the number of casualties that they’re concerned with?
PERSIAN GULF WAR
1991
DURATION IN DAYS: 84
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 665,476
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 148
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 383
SOMALIA
1992-93
DURATION IN DAYS: 153
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 26,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 29
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 43
KOSOVO
1999
DURATION IN DAYS: 77
DEPLOYED U.S. TROOPS: 7,000
U.S. BATTLE DEATHS: 0
TOTAL U.S. DEATHS: 2
Source: http://tinyurl.com/ap64d
This is by no means near WWI, WWII or Vietnam counts but it’s much higher than the wars you mentioned. Although to be fair we have a lot more deployed troops in Iraq than we did with the other wars...except for the ‘91 Iraq war. And our troops did an excellent job in Iraq ‘03’s primary combat.
But when you hear on the news every day double digit numbers of Iraqis and American soldiers being killed and wounded, it’s difficult to continue supporting the mission. And when we hear that it’s going to take until 2010-2012 it’s even harder. Which by the way, what is the mission at this point? Train Iraqi soldiers to be as good as us, establish a new government/constitution and then turn over power to the Iraqis? Then pray that a civil war doesn’t break out when we leave?
On the other hand, the U.N. mandates were broken and Saddam was/is a big asshole. But once again, is that our problem? Should we have just let him continue to dictate? Because the Iraq war was quite sudden...we were sitting good in Afghanistan and all of a sudden Bush is calling for better weapons inspections...and he got his weapon inspections. WMD was reason #1 for going to war.
The reason I still to this day agree with the takeover (and the reason I’m not out in the street protesting) minus the WMD issue was that Saddam harbored terrorists and gave them safe haven. Plus the U.N. Oil for Food deal. Not to mention Saddam = Hitler on a smaller scale.
However, the one’s who attacked us on our land were Saudi’s, were they not? This is what I keep hearing from the left. They say, “Why not go after Saudi Arabia?” The proper reaction would be “True, they’re Saudi nationals, but they weren’t ‘hired’ in Saudi Arabia”, right?
Showing superiority in strength wouldn’t have prevented 9/11. And it won’t prevent a future one. Britain’s large military involvement with America in Iraq didn’t stop the bus bombings. All of us are vulnerable to terrorism...we just didn’t think so before September 11, 2001. This unfortunately won’t change...there will always be bad folks out there. If only suicide bombers knew they wouldn’t be getting their 75 virgins, eh?
As I said above, I’m playing the devil’s advocate here. I think pulling out of Iraq at this point would be a big mistake. I was for going to war to take of the WMDs issue...ever since the search has ended I am slowly starting to oppose the war but I’m not an idiot. We made the mess, we need to clean it up/finish the job.
ronnie, you DO need to worry about how the terrorists feel in order to change them. It’s not that I think their feelings/actions are justified, but in order to understand their actions you need to understand their thinking...if you sincerely want change.
I’m not much interested in changing the hearts and minds of terrorists. We already won the hearts and minds of everyone who defied the terrorists by risking their lives to vote. We will not turn our backs on them. We will support them by helping them to destroy the terrorists, not book them on Dr. Phil.
The people I’m speaking of are those who once had a bit of power. I’m not an Iraq expert but from what I recall there are three warring religious sects. Two like us (the one’s who had no power before) and one doesn’t (the one’s who used to have all the power). Please correct me if I’m wrong (my memory needs to be refreshed/updated).
No one but Saddam had power.
ooking at our ever-rising Trillion dollar debt while Congress gives themselves a raise:
In 2006 it will increase $3,100 ( http://tinyurl.com/ctbck )
On Jan. 1, 2003, they took a raise of $4,700.
So they will go 3 years without a raise, and when they do get one, it’s below the cost of living increase. That’s what you wish you had? I would have quit.
The war MAY fix future problems but their are PRESENT problems that should be fixed. Money better spent/saved and more American lives saved.
On the other hand, the U.N. mandates were broken and Saddam was/is a big asshole. But once again, is that our problem?
Too much money. Not our problem. Sacrificing national security for money sounds a lot like blood for oil to me.
I was for going to war to take of the WMDs issue…
What about the reasons the dems didn’t highlight? Violating the cease fire? Shooting at our planes? Inspectors in and out and in and out? Paying the families of suicide bombers? Are any of those good reasons for you? They were all on the list. You have me thinking a guy arrested for murder, rape, arson, extortion and a parking violation should be set free if we find out the parking meter was broken.
Perhaps it’s the number of casualties that they’re concerned with?
That MIGHT have been an interesting theory, except that the protests started even before we went into Iraq. Hell, some of them started before we went in Afghanistan.
You can come up with as many reasons as you want for these people’s actions, but it really always boils down to one thing. If it is Bush’s initiative, it is wrong and evil.
I find it hard to argue with that...as selfish as it may seem. The war MAY fix future problems but their are PRESENT problems that should be fixed. Money better spent/saved and more American lives saved.
So you have a different opinion about how the country should spend it’s money than those who were elected to make these decisions. Well, THAT certainly justifies all the vitriol of the protestors. “We disagree with strongly with your policy, so you are a facist murderer who is worse than Hitler.” Interesting debating style.
By the way, check out just a few events that have also cost us American lives in the last couple of decades, while we were saving money by not going on the offensive. (in no way is this to be considerd a complete list)
US Embassy in Beirut - 63 killed
Marine Barracks in Beirut - 241 killed
Pan Am Flight 103 - 259 killed
first WTC Bombing - 6 dead, 100’s wounded
USS Cole - 17 dead, dozens wounded
9/11 - approx. 3000 dead
I guess pacifism is just as hazardous to one’s health as war, huh?
Oh, and in case you or your friends with their alternative viewpoints think that this is just a few random events, check out the
number of attacks against our embassies between 1987 and 1997. But we had a projected budget surplus at the time, so no harm, no foul, right?
What amazes me is that we didn’t do anything about this sooner.
Holy shit wiser, that is one hell of a list.
But you know we couldn’t do anything because, this is there culture and they are really not that bad of people.
It’s all USA’s fault you know just ask guys like m_luv or alteranativeviewpoint, they know all.
/time to go barf
that is one hell of a list.
I’m waiting for the nutjobs to say “look, the number of attacks went down over time.”
Yep, they did. Unfortunately, it seems they got bolder because we refused to do anything about these attacks and changed the targets from the embassies in other countries to right here at home.
But we saved money, so what the hell?
I would give my left nut (the honey roasted cashews I’m enjoying, that is) to hear a good reason to protest the war that doesn’t fall under the category, “It’s toooooo hard” or “It’s tooooo expensive.” Since when is cheap and lazy the way to go about anything? And don’t give me any bullshit, m_luv, about how everything would be ok if Bush were just honest. No one believes that you would be a Bush supporter if he hadn’t been convinced that WMD should be on the list of reasons for going to Iraq. Enough of your own lies. You’re against this war because your guy isn’t in the White House.
The reasons you guys have listed has me back 100% pro-war. It really should have been taken care of by Clinton.
It’s just too bad the media doesn’t put out a reminder every once in a while...because I watch the prime time news a lot and was ignorant to a lot of this information. I’m glad you guys set the record straight. Because they were also the ones constantly pushing WMDs as pretty much the only big reason for invading Iraq. They may have mentioned some of the stuff you guys did but I never heard it/read it.
I will make my presence felt at the next ANSWER coalition protest in my area.
JimK-
My position is, Iraq needs to succeed. Period. And because I’m not into hating my country or trying to bask in the attention of the media, I’ll gladly hold my tounge on any criticism I have of the war until the soldiers are done and home.
Jim, very well said, and probably a good lesson for me. Its just hard to hold my tongure sometimes when people get into the whole “WMDs were not a major reason for going” routine. But, Ill hold my tongue.
the whole “WMDs were not a major reason for going” routine
Does that honestly seem like a subject the right would want to pound into the spotlight?
RSS (Subscribe)
The argument on the left is that you CAN support the troops because they don’t want the troops to die. They want them back here where they’re safe. THAT to them is the ULTIMATE support.
And for our soldier’s sake I hope they’re over there winning the minds/hearts with the spread of information (moderate Muslims speaking to the people instead of Americans) and not at the barrel of the gun. Because the only thing I saw in some Iraq War documentaries was our army being the police. It’s a power struggle that neither side wants to give up. The Iraqi people need to be convinced that they’re better off now while giving up a little power so all of them can be on equal ground.
Put yourselves in the enemies’ shoes: Some other country comes along, invades your land and now drives around in military vehicles touting guns. I bet you’d be pissed too. What would change your mind to get on their side?
Protestors just don’t like the way this war was handled. They feel the mission in Afhanistan wasn’t complete and our officials thought there were WMDs based on “faulty intelligence”, which to them is like what we would think of Moore if he used that excuse.
While I don’t think their displaying of coffins is helping their movement, you could say the same thing about statues of burning holocaust victims. They’re “memorial statues” but at the same time they’re a sick reminder of the deaths of millions.
Your point is well made. If the protestors were more level-headed and respectful and actually appeared do something for a cause and not just attention (Casey’s Mom and her not REALLY wanting to meet with the president) they could persuade a few more people on the fence. Their tactics to the majority are like PETA’s two recent billboard campaigns.