The controversy at Walter Reed is heating up:
Since the spring, long before an angry mom named Cindy Sheehan set up camp outside President Bush’s Texas ranch, anti-war activists have been holding vigils outside Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Friday nights, when many soldiers and their families venture off campus for steak dinners.
They’ve called for better health care benefits for soldiers wounded in Iraq, protested an early policy of making some soldiers buy their own meals while in care, and accused the military of purposely flying injured troops in under cover of night to downplay the volume of casualties. And they’ve waved signs protesting the war and the Bush administration…
Now vigil organizers are alleging that Cybercast News Service’s story is part of a strategy by Bush’s supporters to hurt war protesters’ credibility in the wake of Sheehan’s public relations success and sinking support for the war.
“It’s all part of a smear campaign,” Medea Benjamin, a liberal anti-war activist from San Francisco and a co-founder of CodePink, one of the groups organizing the vigils, said in a telephone interview.
Sheehan, the Vacaville mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq, has gotten help from liberal donors, public relations firms and groups including CodePink.
Friday night at Walter Reed, counterprotesters outnumbered the 20 or so vigil participants by a 3-1 margin. They waved flags, yelled at anti-war activists and hoisted signs saying such things as: “Cindy Sheehan Bride of Bin Laden.”
They said a hospital should be off-limits for political demonstrations, no matter the message. One counterprotester, Vietnam veteran Ted Sampley, said he had come from Kinston, N.C., for the day, to give the anti-war crowd a piece of his mind…
But counterprotesters said Friday the anti-war side has sanitized its vigil since the controversy broke. Before, said Albion Wilde, a Baltimore-area counterprotester who has been coming for months, “They had nasty signs: ‘Maimed for a lie,’ ‘Died for Halliburton.’ ”
In the midst of all of this, James Miguez – a 28-year-old Army soldier from Iowa who has been recovering at Walter Reed since June – walked out of the hospital gate to meet a pizza deliveryman, and looked bewildered about all the fuss.
An encounter in Iraq with an explosive device severed arteries, scarred his face and neck and covered his thighs with shrapnel, but he said his Humvee at the time was loaded with the best armor available.
“They can’t give us no more than we got,” he said. “Whatever we needed, we got it.” And he said, “The care here has been exceptional.”
At the same time, he said he didn’t get the sense the vigil participants were trying to shame him, or blame soldiers for the war.
“I really can’t object,” he said. “I fight for them to be able to say what they want to say.”
My personal opinion is that military hospitals should not be the site for any type of protest. Period.
But you know how I feel about protests in general.
Mike S
No agenda at all. Unless of course you compare his piece to the Stars and Stripes piece or this Sac Bee one. But then what do you expect from a Bonzel organization.
DougJ
John, it takes a lot of guts for you come out against protests like this. All these pro-dissent nuts will undoubtedly be calling you names, saying you hate freedom, but the truth is the founding fathers never meant for the kind of dissent we’re seeing to be protected under the constitution.
Everybody wants to be all pro-free-speech but in the end a lot of protest is counterproductive and truly is the equivalent (if not worse) of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. Hats off for taking a strict constructionist approach on the First. I know it will tee off a lot of the shouters in the blogosphere, but you’re dead on right.
neil
Now I understand a little better why the right believes that the anti-war protesters are violent, insensitive and cruel: because that’s what right-wing protesters are like. Protesting against a candlelight vigil.. now that’s classy. Kinda reminds me of Fred Phelps, except he’s a Democrat, isn’t he?…
Steve
Seems like Roy Edroso has his priorities in the right place:
KJ Lopez hears about alleged (i.e., Drudge-reported) anti-war protests at Walter Reed and seethes: “Have you ever been so disgusted?”
Then she hears that the famous military hospital is actually being closed down by a federal commission — the same one that did Joe Lieberman a solid by exempting New London from the bloodletting — and sighs that it’s a “bad p.r. move.” Protesting outside a place is apparently worse than shutting it down, in Bizarro World at least.
John Cole
If you are coming here expecting a defense of KLO, you are in the wrong place.
DougJ
Protesting outside a place is apparently worse than shutting it down, in Bizarro World at least.
Mr Furious
I think the protests at Walter Reed started out in good faith and with the right idea. I’m sure we all remember the emails about donating phone cards and the stories about some of the horrendous bureaucratic, not medical treatment returning soldiers were subjected to. I’m all for making a big fucking stink about that stuff. But I fear these protests have taken a turn for the worse, if not been outright hijacked.
I agree with John that hospitals should be a no-protest zone. If for no other reason than peace and quiet. I can remember as a kid, street signs that warned about penalties for unneccessary honking in a hospital zone, etc. Is that even the case anymore?
Wounded sodliers and their families should not have to run a gauntlet of protesters of any kind to get in and out of a hospital. Jesus. Anybody who lands up in WR is there for a noble cause in the sense that they were wounded serving our country—whether you agree with the overall war or not. Leave them the fuck alone.
DougJ
Hard times demand sacrifices and that’s what shutting down Walter Reed is — a sacrifice, part of the sacrifice shared by all Americans. But protesting and bothering the people inside is classless and unpatriotic. See the difference?
DougJ
Sorry for the double post.
Stormy70
I agree. Protests should be held at the Capitol or the White House. The wounded soldiers do not set the policy. Heck, find your congressman’s office and set up shop there.
Mr Furious
Tell me DougJ, what have YOU sacrificed? What has President Tax Cuts in Time of War and his party asked ANYBODY to sacrifice? STFU.
If anything about the closing of Walter Reed doesn’t result in some kind of significant fucking upgrade for all concerned, I say BULLSHIT. Guys who left their fucking limbs in Iraq should not be asked for any more “sacrifices.”
DougJ
Guys who left their fucking limbs in Iraq should not be asked for any more “sacrifices.”
DougJ
My block-quoting isn’t working here. I’ll switch to using quotes.
Defense Guy
In theory, a protest should be designed to elicit a favorable outcome to those doing the protests. When the subject is the war in Iraq and the desired outcome is to remove all of our troops from the country, then protesting the organization (ie military) who does not control the situation, is just stupid and in this case cruel. It is the elected (executive and legislative) branches of our government that tell our military where to go and what to do, so the proper place for these protests is….
DougJ
“It is the elected (executive and legislative) branches of our government that tell our military where to go and what to do, so the proper place for these protests is…”
NOWHERE. Except maybe inside the confines of Gitmo.
Defense Guy
What those who know they have no point will resort to. Tell us, oh angry one, what do you think elevates you to the right to have an opinion over the rest of us? Why is your right to an opinon so much greater than DougJ’s?
BinkyBoy
Its getting the attention thats important, and it appears they’ve done that.
So lets see: Tons of protests around the country totally uncovered by the media counting tens of thousands of people, worthless because of the lack of coverage.
300 people with Ms. Sheehan and 20 people out in front of Walter Reed get tons of attention, 90% of it smears and jeers.
Talk about splinters vs. logs! I’m sorry, but the right wing outrage about this reeks of manufactured falsity.
jobiuspublius
“It’s almost like they’re saying, ‘The soldiers are suckers, you were maimed for a lie, you were duped.’ ”
=============================================
Sucker’s? So, if you’re screwed and I tell you who screwed you, I’m implying that you’re a sucker? I’ll be siltent for politeness sake next time I witness a hit and run, or any crime for that matter.
DJAnyReason
Ok, so maybe this should go under “Why I Dislike Protests/Rallies”, but that’s way down the page by now, and my mind didn’t work fast enough to think of this.
Anyway, one of John’s anti-protest rationales is “I don’t think anyone ever has their minds changed by protests/[r]allies”, although allowing for an exemption for civil rights. Are we drawing a distinction between a protest/rally (hereforward P/R) and a vigil or hunger strike or the like. I’d submit Cindy Sheehan’s “vigil” (as opposed to a P/R) has managed to affect a few opinions – or, if we want to choose somebody less controversial (at least to this blog), how about Ghandi or Cesar Chavez?
And to keep this topical at some level to this thread, if a P/R or “vigil” or whatever is being held to protest something related to a hospital (e.g., poor vet. medical benefits, some sort of sketchy medical testing, abortion), then I can’t find any fault in holding the P/R at the hospital. Now, if you’re blocking thoroughfare or are absurdly loud to the point of major disturbance, that is perhaps different, but the former is unconstitutional (Hill v. Colorado), and the latter would be better handled as a noise violation. At least, that’s my $0.02
Mike S
As far as the anti war/pro WR protesters go, a gauntlet is a major overstatement. The CNS footage showed aboput 3 or 4. Of course once
the inbredBill Floyd got CNS tocovermisrepresent it the rest of theinbredsfreepers came out in force.I’m not sure that protesting at a hospital is a good idea but it’s interesting how the left is blamed for this outrageous behavior when it’s the
inbredsfreepers who have made a circus of it.demimondian
So, let me get this straight. _Stars and Stripes_–not known as a bastion of anti-soldier sympathy, to say the least–had a generally positive report on the protests, and then we’re supposed take the word of someone who claims to have been “coming for months” that the protest used to be much nastier.
It couldn’t be that Mr. Wilde is like, you know, _lying_, could it? You see, there’s a problem with his story: he claims to have been coming to the counterprotest since before the counterprotests were reported to have started.
Otto Man
Agreed. I think the administration’s treatment of our wounded soldiers as something to be kept out of sight is shameful, but there’s a better way to raise attention for this issue. Protest down at the VA headquarters, or the White House, or the Capitol. Not outside the hospital, where so many people are coping with bigger issues.
Now that we have the inevitable conservative counter-protest, it’s only a matter of time before things turn ugly. Maybe the Protest Warriors will show up again and we’ll be treated to some more internal fighting.
Mr Furious
DG, DougJ-
I make no claim to having an opinion above you or anyone else. I’m asking DougJ a straight-up question. If one can decipher his crazy-ass blockquoting, you’ll see he implies a great shared sacrifice on the part of all Americans. I say that is horseshit. The people at Walter Reed are making the supreme sacrifice and their lives and the lives of their families will never be the same. The rest of the country cruises along making no sacrifice of any kind as a matter of policy or example from our elected leadership.
Honor them? Goddamn right. I have nothing but the utmost respect for them and would have nothing to say to them besides “thank you” and as big a handshake or embrace as the situation would permit.
Fuck the two of you for thinking you know anything about what I feel for these guys. NOWHERE on my blog or anywhere else will you find evidence of me EVER trashing wounded soldiers or “dishonoring their sacrifice.” WTF? Did you even READ what I wrote upthread? Or do you just assume I’m bashing the troops? Pay attention.
I hate this fucking War with the best/worst of them. But I NEVER make the mistake of blaming the troops or doing anything but honor them. I have a big goddamn problem with the civilian leadership and that’s where my anger is directed. Sorry to disagree DougJ, but it’s not only the right of a citizen to question matters of war, I’d say it’s a responsibility. And I don’t plan to go to Gitmo to do it.
Every flag-draped coffin or medical-evac who comes to Walter Reed by way of some horrible three continent triage pisses me off. It disgusts me that you get some kind of patriotic hard-on about “the bittersweet glory” of somebody losing a limb for his country.
You better believe I’m the “angry one” now.
Mike S
Youe mistake was in responding to the
sock puppetDougJ in the first place.Mr Furious
Fine. In my angry haste upthread, I did type “STFU.” I suppose that could be construed as “my opinion matters, yours doesn’t” What it really means is “gimme a fucking break.”
All my other points remain.
ppGaz
John, it’s exactly because of this kind of crap from the person or persons who post as DougJ …. that your remarks, while well intentioned, are inappropriate.
The bad word is “should.” You may prefer that the WR protesters take their activities elsewhere. In fact, I also prefer it, and I think for the same basic reason (people in a hospital deserve to be left alone).
I think they’d be better to take their show down the road to the Capitol, or White House. But as soon as we say they “shouldn’t” protest at WR, then we open the door to the morons (or moron impersonators ? ) to say things like Doug’s blurb.
When the government starts shutting down protests, then it’s time for citizens to gather in the streets and run the government sons of bitches out of town on a rail.
I’m not sure if it’s possible to express one’s displeasure at certain styles of protests without opening the door to such Dougisms …. but to my way of thinking, Dougisms are far more harmful than these protests can ever be.
The protests are about bad taste. What Doug says is an invitation to tyranny.
Defense Guy
What you demand for yourself, you will not even consider giving to others. I appreciate the retraction of the STFU comment, as that was what I took issue with. The idea that one or the other of us has some sort of inherent right to have an opinon at the expense of the other. It simply isn’t that way, and won’t be in any country that is worth having.
I still think Walter Reed is the wrong place for this, and that it is completely disrespectful of those who have very much sacrificed on MY behalf. However, just as you make the correct claim that neither DougJ nor I can know how you feel about the troops, you can just as easily make the claim that you don’t know how we feel either.
jobiuspublius
DougJ Says:
”
John, it takes a lot of guts for you come out against protests like this. All these pro-dissent nuts will undoubtedly be calling you names, saying you hate freedom, but the truth is the founding fathers never meant for the kind of dissent we’re seeing to be protected under the constitution.”
========================================
That’s right Dougee. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is for. Shoot the bastards!
jobiuspublius
DougJ Says:
“They have experienced the bittersweet glory of giving part of themselves to the most noble of causes, the cause of freedom. But YOU want to take that away from them by telling them that they gave their limbs in vain for a boondoggle set up a dishonest president. What sort of respect is that?”
====================================================
Oh, Dougee, you’re so romantic! Quick, someone play Hard Times! I have tears.
Otto Man
Waaaaay off topic, but I saw this NY Times story about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and wanted to share.
Otto Man
Right, right. The Founding Fathers absolutely hated public dissent.
The protests that led to the Boston Massacre? Not them.
The various Stamp Act riots? They thought those were tacky.
The Boston Tea Party? An invention of the librul media.
ppGaz
Revise and extend dept:
This “controversy” is “heating up?”
I am not seeing much about it anywhere but here.
Where’s the heat? The link appears to point to a story that is belatedly telling the story we saw in here last week.
The SacBee is probably more likely to get riled up about pet adoptions than anything happening on the sidewalks of DC.
circlethewagons
Now THAT’s (parody as protest) the type of protest that I can get 100% behind.
Mr Furious
Nope. And i don’t. I didn’t say DougJ hasn’t done anything to sacrifice for the war—for all I know he’s in the Army—I asked him.
DougJ said the thing about “bittersweet glory” I didn’t put that out there. And I think it’s a fair indicator of how he feels. He’s welcome to convince me otherwise.
Just to be clear. If you read what I wrote, I thought I stated CLEARLY that people should leave the hospital and soldiers alone.
Just because I am against THIS War at THIS time executed in THIS manner, do not assume I am a pacifist or anti-troops. And I will be first in line to punch the teeth out of anybody who “spits on a soldier”
Steve
John: I was not expecting you to defend K-Lo, I was suggesting that you and K-Lo are both inappropriately focused on protest etiquette in the face of greater issues. I realize there is a Godwinesque quality to making K-Lo comparisons and for that I apologize.
Defense Guy
Mr. Furious
You do understand that those who are involved in the fight in Iraq might like to think that the American people see their sacrifice as one that is worth it and might also like to think that we support both their effort and the reasons for it. In short, if they believe in the cause, shouldn’t we?
Just to head off what I know this will lead to, no this does not mean we should blindly follow Chimpy McHalliburton.
ppGaz
Easy does it, DG. One at a time!
Boronx
You do understand that those who are involved in the fight in Iraq might like to think that the American people see their sacrifice has been wasted by the incompetent criminals that command them, and that we ought to put a stop to it and see that it doesn’t happen again?
You do also understand that those who are returned injured from Iraq might like to think that the American people care about the way the DoD has been mistreating them?
BinkyBoy
Uhhh, DG, I know this question has been asked a lot, but:
Whats the cause?
jobiuspublius
Defense Guy Says:
“Mr. Furious
You do understand that those who are involved in the fight in Iraq might like to think that the American people see their sacrifice as one that is worth it and might also like to think that we support both their effort and the reasons for it. In short, if they believe in the cause, shouldn’t we?
Just to head off what I know this will lead to, no this does not mean we should blindly follow Chimpy McHalliburton.”
=====================================================
But, we’re still waiting on Dear Leader for word on the noble cause of the week. Oh, please, please Dear Leader, make it romantic the way Dougee J does, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Defense Guy
Yeah, yeah, I know my ‘prowess’ scares you. Not my quote though.
I’ll mark Boronx down as treating it as a historical marker, where the most important aspect is to indict the current administration. What the troops think, ah who cares?
Removal of a tyrant who was a threat to the US and freedom, and establishment of democracy in a land that hasn’t known it in over 30 years. Not that I expect you to see past anything that doesn’t include the words oil, but don’t say I didn’t try.
Mike S
Not necessarilly. I believe in the troops. I believe that for the most part they are doing the best, most honorable jom they can. But I also believe they have been sent on a fools errand.
I’ve given this a lot of thought. As I’ve said before I had a friend who served over there. He knew that I was totally against the war, but also knew that I was four square behind him and the people he was serving with. When I would see him quoted in the papers I was always very proud of him. When his wife came up tp our place for a party with her friend who’s husban was over there with him I asked all of our friends to not mention Iraq out of respct for what they were going through.
When he got our care packages he knew we were against the war. When he gave some of my wifes home made Jerky to his wounded patients the pride my wife and I felt was enormous. The idea that we were able to give comfort to them was amazing. Here we were, two people dead set against the war, helping people who we weren’t able to help by stopping it in the first place. Last Veteran’s day I thanked him for the lives he saved that would be able to celebrate future Veteran’s Days.
All of my military friends, both active and retired, ubderstand that I am against the war. But every one of them has no doubt that I support the soldiers 110%. I think the vitriol used against the anti-war crowd, saying that they “hate the troops” and such, does far more damage. Because some of them believe that even though for the most part it is totally untrue.
Mr Furious
DG-
I understand what you are saying, but I gotta respectfully disagree. I won’t sign on and believe in the cause if i don’t think it’s right.
I look at my my criticism of the War and the Administration’s execution of it as supporting the troops in a different way. If the Bush administration never faced any questions or criticism would they have stepped up the armoring of Humvees?
As for the soldiers, I support their efforts. They have been given their orders, and I want them home safe but only after as successful a resolution in Iraq as possible. Exactly where and when that point will be reached isn’t clear to me. But I don’t think the civilian leadership has served our military anywhere near as as gallantly as our miltary has served them or the rest of us.
You don’t hear a lot of “chickenhawk” bullshit from me, I’m not asking Jenna and Barbara Bush and Mitt romney’s sons to enlist. What I would appreciate is honest answers and a fucking plan from the President. Rumsfeld to live up to his responsibility in establishing benchmarks for Congress and to give the troops whatever they want and need.
But what would I appreciate more than anything? How about not financing this war on a credit card? How about asking the American public to actually make a tangible difference—conserve oil. How about taking the time to actually use the energy bill to do some good on this issue. I mean you had five freaking years to come out with it—you would think this was the 2001 version—it is as if the war in the Middle East has had no impact at all in Washington beyond posturing and photo-ops.
In short, I’d like to see some leadership.
Mr Furious
Nicely done, Mike S.
DougJ
I don’t claim to have made a great sacrifice. I have been lucky in that way. I hope that answers your question.
BinkyBoy
Hmm, looks like Needlenose missed “Saddam is a bad guy”, DG. You’d better rush over and make sure he gets it clear.
But as usual, you’re full of horse pucky. There were severe doubts, within the government, that NONE of your arguments were even the slightest bit true. So we went to war on the hunch of a coke-addled AWOL C- student.
And now that EVERY excuse your side has tried has turned against you, you further disgrace yourself by claiming that those pointing out the lies that its dishonoring their “sacrifice”.
You’re pathetic.
sean
looks like DougJ is from the Homer Simpson School of Political Thought:
“Can’t Someone Else Do It?”
DougJ
I was just thinking, since you all claim I’m obsessed with the Rapture (not really true since I am not that confident of being saved, I’m not a saint), it would be so funny if the anti-war people were marching around, squaring off with the pro-Bush protesters and veterans, and suddenly, “poof” the pro-Bush protesters and veterans were gone, saved, while the anti-war folks were marching around there by themselves.
ppGaz
He was no threat; he hardly put up a fight when we invaded. He had none of the putative weapons, and even if he had, he had no means of delivering them beyond his borders, and even if he had, he’d have had to be suicidal to do so.
That tired dog won’t hunt. Hell, it won’t even roll over.
Democracy has not been established, and there is no reason based on history to believe that it will be.
There is no history of liberal democracy Iraq, or anywhere else in the Arab world. You are talking about “bringing democracy” to a land that has never seen a stable, liberal democracy.
Your assertions are bullshit followed by rank speculation.
ppGaz
Yes, Dougie, it’s charming to see a “guy” (or whatever you are) who talks with mock sincerity about “values” talk glibly about the end of life as we know it, as if it were a good thing.
You might want to get yourself a copy of the DSM-IV and get yourself checked into a mental facility. You’re one crazy sumbitch.
The Bitch In the Ditch
Removal of a tyrant who was a threat to the US and freedom, and establishment of democracy in a land that hasn’t known it in over 30 years. Not that I expect you to see past anything that doesn’t include the words oil, but don’t say I didn’t try.
Yes, with no weapons of mass destruction, no support outside his own palace, and a highly inferior military, I can see why Saddam had the US just shaking in its boots. Except — Oh wait, it didn’t. No Americans were threatened by the two-bit tyrant until the Bush Administration made up its WMD stories. And as for establishing a democracy — have you even read a newspaper lately? Yes, we’re building a shining beacon of democracy over there all right… except for that part with the no suffrage for women… and the part with the oppression of the Sunni majority… the bombings, the newly-developed terrorist camps, and oh yeah, and the 3rd world living conditions. If you”re telling the Middle East that this is what democracy looks like, then this has set back democracy for generations to come.
Oh, and DougJ v5.2, while you’re busy reinterpreting the constitution via necromancy with our founding fathers, perhaps you can also reinterpret what the founding fathers actually said about it being vital to our nation to avoid entanglement with foreign alliances? Because I’m pretty sure that forcibly removing other countries’ leaders from power violates that whole policy of not dividing our country by becoming involved in the governances of other countries thing that Washington and Jefferson and Madison seemed so fond of.
Defense Guy
I have no problem with the positions of Mike S or Mr. Furious. For the record, that is how I think you can be pro-troops and anti-war. When it matters, make sure the number one position is pro-troops. Well done guys.
demimondian
ppG, I call bullshit on this. We established a free and functional democracy — by force, thank you very much — in Japan. It’s hard to imagine any country on Earth with less of a history of democracy than the Land of the Rising Sun prior to the occupation, yet the Japanese have had flourishing dissent, and even two changes of the party in power.
And look at Lebanon — it just had a hotly contested election. Yes, the results broke down regionally, but there was no violence, and all parties accepted the outcome. That’s more than the US can say about, say, the 2000 election, eh?
Rumsfeld’s plans were stupid, but his goals were not. Had we staffed adequately, and payed for Europe and Russia’s support, we could have built a democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, it’s too late now.
ppGaz
I said:
Just Some Guy
Could you provide some cites for this please? Direct quotes from the books or letters of some of the founding fathers is preferred. Paine and Jefferson are my favorites, but others will do.
Vlad
Which is a worse affront to America, K-Lo or Kelo?
Rick
There is no history of liberal democracy Iraq, or anywhere else in the Arab world.
That’s why we’re trying to *make* history, folks. Trying to move the dynamic of governing there from tribal strongman atavism to something more current.
Had we staffed adequately, and payed for Europe and Russia’s support…
What is the insufficiecy of our “staffing” in this effort to permit representative government to become established? And what valuable contributions could’ve flowed from “Europe” and Russia?
Cordially…
ppGaz
I think he was referring to John Birch.
ppGaz
Really? Well then, let’s go back to 2002, and pimp a planless war with an unlimited timeline and budget, for the purpose of establishing the first successful liberal democracy in the Arab world. Americans will be asked forthrightly to give up their blood and treasure for this noble goal.
Why do you suppose that choice wasn’t offered, pRick?
Defense Guy
ppGaz
What is the other solution then? The insanity of that region was hardly staying contained. Combine that knowledge with the idea that Democratic countries generally do not make war with each other and the idea that the other tyrants in the region will be put on notice by their own people should this work out.
Just a little optimism every once in a while wouldn’t kill you would it?
srv
Rapture. Believe me, I pray to be left behind every day. What a paradise that would be.
ppGaz
To what, DG? If you are talking wrt 2002, then you are talking about a solution in search of a problem. There was no huge problem to solve vis a via Iraq in 2002.
If you are talking today, then …. different story. It’s my belief that a stable outcome, which includes an Iraq that is not hostile to US interests, is worth the effort now.
But I ask for the twelve trillionth (okay, twentieth) time:
How does your government, which created the current clusterfuck, ask for and get the support of the people to stay in there and get that good outcome? Specifically, having been wrong for 3 years, on what basis do they now ask us to believe that they know what they are doing?
It’s not a trick question. I’ve given you my answer, and it’s a real answer. Assuming that you won’t like mine, then I throw the question back to you:
What is the solution, then?
Defense Guy
ppGaz
I’ve said before, I don’t rightly know. I do know it’s past time for the Iraqi’s to stand up and do the majority of the work while we play a smaller and smaller supporting role.
mac Buckets
A “planless” war produced an overthrow of a dictator, a transitional authority, a voted-in temporary government, a scheduled permanent election, and a Constitutional Congress?
That was one meticulous non-plan!
ppGaz
I think there are many who would, but I don’t know if there are enough of them.
Some talking head yesterday (probably, one of the 4 generals on Meet the Press) said that the key to having a strong Iraqi defense is having a strong government for them to fight for. So it’s a chicken-egg problem. Unfortunately, the insurgents know that. By taking away security, they weaken the government. By weakening the government, they make it easier to take away security. It’s a game they can play for a long, long time.
It’s a helluva problem. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Etc.
ppGaz
Yes, it was a great plan. You’re right.
Sorry. You win.
Mike S
The thing is that that is common. Even on the dreaded dKos there were fundraisers in order to buy armor for soldiers. People organized care packages to be sent.
The reason so many believe that the anti’s hate the troops is partly because of blowhards like Rush and the rest of the talk radio wing falsly claiming that anti war people hate the troops. All of the people at our party not only agreed to my wishes regarding the wives, but they were totally supportive of them. All except one guy who everyone ganged up on to shut his trap.
Many of the blowhards have to make shit up because the fact that the majority of us do support the troops makes it difficult to villify us. Bill Floyd and the CNS piece are perfect examples.
Are there idiots who won’t support the troops? Of course. But those are a distinct minority and I see them geting shouted down far more often than not.
ppGaz
Heh .. yes, well, democracy is, uh, on the march here in the US, for sure ;-)
I mentioned Lebanon the other day. I said that I think it is too early to put it into the “stable liberal democracy” column, although it certainly seems to be on a favorable path right at the moment.
However, that said, we must point out that Lebanon is drastically different from Iraq. It’s about 60-40 Muslim and Christian, I think. It’s a small country with a small population by comparison to Iraq. And it has a quite different cultural and political history.
But let’s say, it hangs in there and becomes the leader of the Arab world’s advance toward modern democracy. In that case, I say, how do we use it as a model for Iraq? Or more to the point, how does our Spud Government do that?
I fear that all we’d get out of DC would be marketing slogans and bromides. I wish it were different.
Biff
if they believe in the cause, shouldn’t we?
No. If supporting the war means getting more soldiers killed unnecessarily, then no. Their feelings are not more important than their lives.
Removal of a tyrant who was a threat to the US
I really wonder what the point is of having blog discussions of the war, when after 2 years of it people can still believe horseshit like this.
Biff
It’s hard to imagine any country on Earth with less of a history of democracy than the Land of the Rising Sun prior to the occupation
This is not correct. history link
(not trying to say anything about Iraq one way or the other in this comment)
Defense Guy
I don’t know, why don’t we ask the pilots in the no fly zone who were routinely attacked by Saddam, or perhaps the families of the AMERICANS who were killed by Saddam funded pali terrorists. Then again, you could keep thinking that only side of the argument has any merit. Thats the personal ego driven one, in case you were wondering.
Defense Guy
Mike S
I don’t listen to Rush, but I can find many examples of the other kind of war protester. I really don’t want to, becaue at this point I feel it is counter productive to what must be done now. Part of that is to find a way to be a whole country again, and that goes for both sides of the aisle. Let’s pretend, at least, that we don’t want to eat each others babies, to start.
Mike S
What do you have against one of my favorite food groups?
Otherwise, agreed.
Biff
I don’t know, why don’t we ask the pilots in the no fly zone who were routinely attacked by Saddam
He fired on our military in HIS COUNTRY, and that makes him a threat to the US???
or perhaps the families of the AMERICANS who were killed by Saddam funded pali terrorists.
Americans have been killed in Sri Lanka as well, does that make the Tamil Tigers a threat to the US??
Then again, you could keep thinking that only side of the argument has any merit.
Some arguments for the war have merit. Arguments that Saddam was a threat to the US have zero merit, and you damn well know it.
Thats the personal ego driven one, in case you were wondering.
It’s the not-having-your-head-up-your-ass one. When you have to reach for such absurd examples to justify your claim, an ounce of intellectual honesty should make you question whether the claim makes any sense.
ppGaz
The basis for a years-long war costing hundreds of billions of dollars and without any particular end game plan in place?
No.
Not even close.
Tim F
Once again the connections with Hamas comes up. Find me an arab leader with less of a connection with the Palestinians than Saddam did.
Think about why a secular pan-Arabist would support an islamist movement that hated him. After all, one of Saddam’s hallmarks was his violent repression of religious fundamentalists. Why did he give them nothing, then suddenly start caring after Gulf War I? Further, think about how much Saddam actually gave. Given the tribute paid by arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iran it was practically an insult.
Why does a credentialed MD like Bill Frist promote creationism, a movement that detests modern science and would have prevented him from capably treating a single patient if they were able?
Same answer. Political necessity. Saddam needed to quiet his Shiite rabblerousers, Frist needs the nomination. Both payed public lip service to people that they don’t like.
Lord save us if people really believe that these payments constituted a threat to America.
ooJiz
Done!
Mike
“All of my military friends, both active and retired, ubderstand that I am against the war. But every one of them has no doubt that I support the soldiers 110%. I think the vitriol used against the anti-war crowd, saying that they “hate the troops” and such, does far more damage. Because some of them believe that even though for the most part it is totally untrue.”
No doubt you’re sincere, as it seems most of the lefties on this blog are, but it’s just a matter of time. If this war goes on too much longermaybe not you, but your compatriots on the left, and I mean the leaders of the voices of the left, the ones you find on Kos, Atrios, DU and all the other wingnut sights will no doubt start blaming the troops. I believe it’s just a matter of time. As the saying goes, a tiger can’t change it’s spots. Many of the Left in this country have a visceral hatred for the military as they do for most other things to do with patriotism. They’ll jump at the chance to condemn others, calling them chickenhawks, etc., but you’ll never find them getting their liberal arts educated hides down to the recruiting stations. That’s just not something that’s in most of them to do. It’s not part of their makeup unfortunately. Why else do you see in poll after poll military personnel voting Republican?
chadwig
An honest cost/benefit analysis of the Iraq debacle, minus empty slogans and “catapulted propaganda” would be a devastating indictment of our current “leadership”. A cost benefit analysis of the Iraq debacle from the point of view of war profiteers in the Defense Industry or in political terms for their handpuppets in Congress would surely get a thumbs up. The only traitors running around flapping their gums are the chickenhawks and war profiteers.
Demdude
No doubt you’re sincere, as it seems most of the lefties on this blog are, but it’s just a matter of time. If this war goes on too much longermaybe not you, but your compatriots on the left, and I mean the leaders of the voices of the left, the ones you find on Kos, Atrios, DU and all the other wingnut sights will no doubt start blaming the troops. I believe it’s just a matter of time. As the saying goes, a tiger can’t change it’s spots. Many of the Left in this country have a visceral hatred for the military as they do for most other things to do with patriotism.
What a load of crap…
Mike S
There are so many ways to respond to the childlike post of Mikey. I think I’ll just pass and continue laughing at how well he internalises what the people like Sean, the High School drop out, Hannity says. They love people who can’t think for themselves.
demimondian
Yup, you know, you’re right. I’m viscerally pained by patriotism, just like most on the Left. I would never consider, say, taking a job as a military contractor instead of a (significantly) better paying job in private industry. That would be patriotic…oh, wait…I did. I would never volunteer my talents directly to keeping American servicemen and -women safer in war zones…oh wait…I did. Would I have served if I could? You betcha — I tried, and they turned me down. But…that would make me…patriotic…and that’s unpossible.
Next Mikey’s going to say I’m “different” from those _other_ lefties. Kos served, baby — can you say the same?
You know what, Mikey? I don’t think you understand patriotism. Patriotism is understanding that this is my country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When wrong, to be put right. How _dare_ you question the patriotism of those who are trying to put America right when it’s wrong?
Phillip J. Birmingham
Don’t they mean Vietnam Veteran, Swift Boat Liar and complete scumbag Ted Sampley?
B. Ross
I’m asking the Bush twins to enlist. I’m asking Mitt’s kid(s) to enlist. I’m asking Cheney’s kids to enlist. Rummy’s. All the neo-con kids, their wives, their husbands, whomever. If this cause is important enough to shed blood for, it’s important enough that one’s own kids/wives/husband/whomevers shed their blood. End of story.
Same for all of the 101st Screaming Keyboardists. If you believe in it, go for it.
Operation Yellow Elephant: SIGN UP OR SHUT UP.
B. Ross
PS. NeoconDude–Tigers have stripes, not spots. You’re thinking leopards.
This is also the problem with your entire worldview.
W.B. Reeves
So where would the anti-war Vets be? Roasting in Hell?
Translation: It isn’t happening. There’s no evidence that it’s going to happen. Still you KNOW that it will happen because that’s what matches up to the caricature in your cranium. Obviously, you’re unaware that Kos is a Veteran himself. BTW, my nephew is in the service and I guarantee you he doesn’t vote Republican. Your right about one thing though, Tigers don’t change their spots. Unsurprising since they’re striped, not spotted.
Jim Caputo
What about the troops fighting in Iraq who think this war is horseshit? Don’t their opinions count? Aren’t there views just as valid as the pro-war soldiers? Don’t they have as much of a right to have people that opinion here at home as do the pro-war troops?
DougJ
Uh, because he is also a man of faith who realizes that evolution is nothing more than an elaborate ruse concocted by left-wing scientists to try to take God out of the discussion of the universe. Seems reasonable to me.
David
Well, there you have it – a mini – civil war among anti-war and pro-war factions. But why fight at the hospital?
“Cindy Sheehan Leads Code Pink Women For Peace To Rescue Wounded Soldiers”
Bruce Moomaw
Yes. Military hospitals are not the place for anti-war protests (or, for that matter, pro-war ones), since some of the seriously wounded — or permanently maimed — people going into and out of that building are going to feel differently about the war than you do, and telling them they’re wrong amounts to spitting in their eye in a particularly cruel and pointless way.
Boronx
telling them they’re wrong amounts to spitting in their eye
Well no, not really, but if you feel that strongly about it, you’ll be very glad to know that’s not what the protesters were doing.
Tim F
ooJiz,
Ouch! I will now retire from this thread in shame.
Cyrus
DougJ Says:
John, it takes a lot of guts for you come out against protests like this. All these pro-dissent nuts will undoubtedly be calling you names, saying you hate freedom…
This is illuminating. DougJ’s idea of “a lot of guts” is… being insulted on a blog. Not trying to raise public awareness for an important issue, certainly not volunteering to go to a warzone… but being insulted by commenters.
but the truth is the founding fathers never meant for the kind of dissent we’re seeing to be protected under the constitution.
DougJ is clearly communing with the dead. Whether it’s via a Ouija board, a seance or something else, I don’t know, but there is only one appropriate punishment. Exodus 22:18.
(Sorry about going so far upthread, but I couldn’t pass up the opportunity for either of those.)
And demimondian,
ppG, I call bullshit on this. We established a free and functional democracy—by force, thank you very much—in Japan. It’s hard to imagine any country on Earth with less of a history of democracy than the Land of the Rising Sun prior to the occupation, yet the Japanese have had flourishing dissent, and even two changes of the party in power.
I call bullshit on this, with double-super-secret no tagbacks! This is part of why I’ve been reading a little less Balloon Juice lately (I can tell you’re all just heartbroken, I know) – the arguments on both sides just go around in circles. He-said/she-said, talking points, blah blah blah. There’s plenty of eloquence and heart and valuable experience around here, but actual new ideas in the comments seem relatively rare. But the point is, Japan did have a democratic period before World War II. The Taisho Period. It was nowhere near as democratic as America today – but standards for democracy are constantly evolving. Considering that American women couldn’t vote and parts of America were de facto apartheid 100 years ago, Japan during that period wasn’t too much worse than we were.
We did not create a democracy after WWII. We restored it. Sure, it was to our specifications, but the institutions had already been in place and people had the knowledge and experience of how to live and participate in a democracy.
If anyone has an example of a democracy being created at gunpoint by an external force, I’d love to see it. But Japan isn’t that example.
Mike
“Translation: It isn’t happening. There’s no evidence that it’s going to happen. Still you KNOW that it will happen because that’s what matches up to the caricature in your cranium. Obviously, you’re unaware that Kos is a Veteran himself. BTW, my nephew is in the service and I guarantee you he doesn’t vote Republican. Your right about one thing though, Tigers don’t change their spots. Unsurprising since they’re striped, not spotted.”
I guess the Left isn’t quite ready yet to come out against the troops, just starting to work at ensuring the military has a hard time recruiting. Here’s the text of a newsletter from The Sojourners. The title is: “Join Cindy Sheehan and protect kids from the Pentagon”
“Buried deep within the No Child Left Behind Act is a provision that requires public high schools to hand over students’ private contact information to military recruiters. If a school does not comply, it risks losing vital federal education funds. As if that weren’t bad enough, the Pentagon has now built an illegal database of 30 million 16 to 25-year-olds as another recruitment tool.
Action 1: Protect our Children – “Opt Them Out!”
Sojourners is partnering with Working Assets and others in The Leave My Child Alone Coalition to make it easy to protect children from unwanted military recruiting by getting their names off both Pentagon and high school recruiting lists.
»Click here to opt out your child
Action 2: Host a Back-To-School Event
Because most high schools turn over their student lists to military recruiters in October, it’s imperative that we get as many kids as possible “opted out” during the month of September. Parents, teachers, grandparents, and concerned citizens are planning Leave My Child Alone back-to-school events from September 7 to 30. It’s easy to host an event at your home, church, or local coffee shop – we provide you with the forms and information you need, plus a FREE DVD (http://www.leavemychildalone.org/DVD) on opting out, featuring Cindy Sheehan and former recruiter Jim Massey.
»Click here to register an event now and help local families opt out! Consider making “Opt Out” the subject of a religious education class, youth group gathering, book club, or other community activity you already participate in.
Action 3: Pass it on
Most parents don’t even know about the need to opt out. Please forward this e-mail to parents, grandparents, and teachers you know. Tell them to visit LeaveMyChildAlone.org for more information and all the forms needed to opt out”
I don’t have a problem at all with parents advising their kids against joining the military if they feel that that’s not where their future should lie. But you can do that now, you can talk to your kids and if you ask the recruiters not to call they won’t. But ACTIVELY working against the recruiters?. I guess in their world the “patriotic” thing to do is to work towards gutting our military. Funny, I was raised that serving the military was a noble thing to do.
Mike S
Or people like you could sign up and make sure it’s not “gutted.”
Mike
“Mike S Says:
I guess in their world the “patriotic” thing to do is to work towards gutting our military.
Or people like you could sign up and make sure it’s not “gutted.””
Been there. U.S. Navy actually. Don’t know if they’d take me or not with my age (46) and the fact my wife might get a bit upset (she’s blind).
How about you, when did you serve, or are you going to wait until there’s a war that you DO support?
Mike S
Then I am sure you have driven your kids to the recruitment office and encouraged them to sign up for infabtry service.
Mike
“Mike S Says:
Then I am sure you have driven your kids to the recruitment office and encouraged them to sign up for infabtry service.”
That’s their choice, they’re both over 18. I have however recommended they finish college first (which one has), and then if they want they can go in as officers. I’ve talked to them about that yes. As far as talking to recruiters, they both did so, there was no one trying to outlaw or discourage it at their schools unlike the Leftys of today.
However, you still haven’t said when you served or are planning to. If the President, or the next President decides to go into say Darfur, will you be signing up then? Did you support going into Afghanistan? Any reason you didn’t go then?
Mike S
Let me see if I have your thinking straight. You expect those of us who warned against going into Iraq for the very reasons that it has turned into a fiasco to join up? You expect people who warned against voting for a man who doesn’t have the capacity for his job to join up? I have yet to see you call for people who did and do support President Bush to do the same. As a matter of fact you tell your own kids to wait. That would be funny if it wasn’t so typical.
Sorry Mikey. If you’re stupid enough to vote for an idiot like Bush it is incumbant on you to join his fiasco moreso than me. If you had listened to me and the others who shot down every reason given before the war this question would be moot. Instead you were a willing bukkake recipient of whatever you were told, regardless of how easily they were disputed.
DougJ
Oh, so Nazi Germany was a democracy. Hence, the libruls’ constant comparisons of democratically elected leaders to Hitler.
jobiuspublius
I’m glad someone brought up WWII Japan. Yes, let’s compare Dear Leaders cluster fuck versus a real threat followed by a real solution. Were there any Japanese Fallujah’s? How many U.S. troops died occupying Japan? MacArthur fed the japanese. What did Bremmer do? Did we hire South African aparthied mercenaries during WWII? Was there any cost plus during WWII? No, but Dear Leader’s grandfather was arms trading with the enemy. What familly values.
About voluntary military service, google Operation Yellow Elephant and try recruiting a bunch of College Young Republicans.
jobiuspublius
Germany was a prosperous democracy that rivaled our own before it became nazi and our slide into fascism rivals their’s.
Cyrus
Oh, so Nazi Germany was a democracy. Hence, the libruls’ constant comparisons of democratically elected leaders to Hitler.
Nazi Germany was obviously not a democracy any more than WWII-era Japan was. Pre-war Japan, however, had a democratic period, as did Germany, called the Weimar republic. It was a brief failure for many obvious reasons, biggest among them being the fact that they elected Hitler, but it was in fact a democracy.
In addition, do you realize what you’re using as a model for victory there? We were in Germany for 40 years after the war. Are we going to be in Iraq that long? Whether that is a price worth paying for a democratic Iraq is worth debating, but either way, doesn’t it strike you as a just tiny bit dishonest that the administration has talked about nothing but how easy, simple and straightforward this would be?
Finally, yet another difference between Iraq and Germany is – we obliterated Germany. Matt Yglesias had some things to say at http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/10/102155/390 about post-WWII reconstruction around the anniversary of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima that I thought were very interesting:
We could vaporize Falluja, Ramadi, and all the rest tomorrow if we wanted to without any real difficulty. But we don’t. Because we don’t want to. Because it would be wrong.
And good for us. But people need to seriously consider the possibility that such moral constraints place real limits on what can — and should — be accomplished through force of arms. The methods morally available to us are very good at destroying an enemy’s weaponry, but not so good at utterly wrecking his country, his worldview, his spirit.
It’s easy to compare what we want to happen in Iraq to what did happen in Japan and Germany. It is also willfully ignorant and/or lying. There were so many other important factors that success at “creating” democracy in those countries doesn’t imply that it is possible in general, let alone in today’s Iraq.
jobiuspublius
Let’s not forget that Iraq did not attack us. Therefore, we have no right to hurt them like we hurt Germany and Japan.
Mike
“Mike S Says:
Let me see if I have your thinking straight. You expect those of us who warned against going into Iraq for the very reasons that it has turned into a fiasco to join up? You expect people who warned against voting for a man who doesn’t have the capacity for his job to join up? I have yet to see you call for people who did and do support President Bush to do the same. As a matter of fact you tell your own kids to wait. That would be funny if it wasn’t so typical.”
Use your brain for a change. I said that The Souljoiners is invoking Cindy Sheehan and saying parents to essentially discourage their kids from joining the military. Then with your “brilliant” retort, you said I should join up. I told you I had in fact been in the military and then asked you if you had served or planned to. This had nothing to do with Iraq, because I didn’t even mention it, I asked what war you WOULD be signing up for.
As for my kids, I didn’t tell them to ‘wait” I told them to get their education first and THEN if they wanted to go in, do so as an officer, I said this with experience. Experience that you quite frankly, don’t have.
Since you decided to turn this into an attack on me, I”ll ask you again, did you support going into Afghanistan, and if so, why didn’t you sign up?
Again, hypothetically, let’s say the President, or a future Democratic president decides to send troops to somewhere like Darfur, will you be going? Would YOU tell your kids to go in instead?
Lastly, I didn’t support going into Iraq, I don’t think you’ll find where I said I did. I also don’t think that Bush has done everything right either. But that doesn’t mean that I think we should just turn tail and run now. Or is that truly what you are advocating, and IF you are saying that, how does that help us as a country in the long run?
W.B. Reeves
Mike draws a bead on the Sojourners organization in the following concoction:
Evidently he considers this evidence for his prophecy of future Left anti-war hostility to the Troops, seeing as he can’t document any in present time. While he took trouble to selectively quote from the Sojourners, he omitted the following statement. A pity since it further reveals the farcical nature of his argument:
You see? It’s those darn pacifist Christians who hate the troops! The next thing you know the Quakers will be spitting on our soldiers!
No, what Mike has a problem with is an organized effort by a religious group to educate parents about their right to remove their children from records that will be forwarded to military recruiters. An activity, need it be pointed out, that is both legal and completely consonant with upholding the Rights and obligations of Parents. Evidentally Mike believes in parental rights on this issue only so long as no one bothers to inform parents what their rights are.
This is either diversion or delusion. Really now, Christian Pacifists cast as the vanguard of a “visceral hatred for the military”? Is that the best you can come up with?