This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Antiwar crowd

  • Harry Reid sucks canal water

    Reading Fox News Channel today, about Reid’s speech intended for this afternoon, I get the distinct impression that Harry “Walter Mitty” Reid thinks he’s got gonads;

    If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve,” Reid will say according to excerpts of the speech to be delivered to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

    Reid will also criticize Bush for a speech last week in which the president asserted that the troop surge he proposed in January — and which is only three-fifths complete — is showing hopeful signs of progress.

    “The White House transcript says the president made those remarks in the state of Michigan. I believe he made them in the state of denial,” Reid will say.

    Ho-ho. Funny fricken guy. I think Reid is in a catatonic state. By the way, Dingy Harry, it’s not the President’s job to write legislation, just like it’s not the Senate’s job to micromanage our National Security.

    On the “up” side, the Washington Post reports that Reid is steering clear of his “woe is us – all is lost” speech from last week;

    Reid did not repeat his assertion last week that “this war is lost,” a comment that drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who branded the Senate majority leader as defeatist. But according to the excerpts, Reid mixes sharp criticism of Bush with praise for Congress’s efforts to end the conflict and appeals to antiwar voters to be patient.

    But Reid wants to be a general so bad he can almost taste it;

    In defending his order to increase U.S. troop strength in Iraq by about 30,000 as part of a plan to secure Baghdad and western Iraq, Bush “tells us it’s ‘surge or nothing,’” and that the choice is to “stay the course or fail,” Reid said. “With all due respect, our president is wrong, and the new Congress will show him the way.”

    Despite Reid’s legal advice, which must be coming from the tearful Code Pink protesters, Congress has nothing to say to about fighting wars except to fork over the cash, or don’t fork over the cash. I cringe at the thought of those defeatists writing op orders for squad leaders in Sadr City.

    But Reid already knows that;

    As for antiwar voters who expect the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to take action to end the war, the Senate majority leader says, “I understand the restlessness that some feel. Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January. But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief — and this is his war.”

    So this tough talk is all about appeasing the Kos Kids and Code Pink hags. Nice constituency you got there, Harry.

    Reid also calls Bush “the odd man out” on Iraq war policy and says meetings with him are not substantive but merely “carefully scripted sessions where he repeats his talking points.”

    He’s the “odd man out” on Iraq because he’s leading the country, not following the latest rant of squeakiest wheels like you’re doing, Senator. See, this is leadership;

    “And, therefore, I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job,” [President Bush] said. “I will, of course, be willing to work with the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, on a way forward. . . . But I also made it clear that no matter how tough it may look, that for the Congress to micromanage this process is a mistake.”

    I figured you missed that class, Harry, since you stick your crooked, wrinkled finger in the air to determine which way you go for the moment. Leaders lead despite what detractors and sideline quarterbacks might say. So sit down, shut up and get out of the way. But he can’t. from the AP via the DC Examiner;

    Reid said Bush was in “a state of denial” over the war, and likened him to another commander in chief four decades ago. “I remember when President Johnson, trying to save his political legacy, initiated the first of many surges into Vietnam in 1965,” he said.

    Reid said thousands more U.S. troops died in Vietnam in the years that followed. Now, he said, Bush “is the only person who fails to face this war’s reality – and that failure is devastating not just for Iraq’s future, but for ours.”

    Except that this President isn’t trying to save a legacy – he’s trying to fight a REAL WAR that is a REAL THREAT to the US and it’s citizens. Not some sorry-ass excuse of a “war for containment” fought for the glorification of the “best and the brightest” of Camelot to prove Democrats could be tough on Communism, too.

    And what brand of pussy releases his speech hours before he gives it? Another way to stick your finger in the air to tell which the wind is blowing, I guess.

  • The war is still lost

    So, the war is still lost according to Reid’s defenders in Congress – despite the fact that his press office told me on the phone that Reid was misquoted on Friday. John Murtha, afraid that Reid might steal his title as the biggest troop-hater is reported by Fox News as saying;

    “I am proud of these troops and what they have done,” said Murtha, D-Pa. “They won the war and the mission was accomplished. We cannot win it militarily. It can only be won diplomatically.”

    In typical Democrat fashion, Murtha tries to have it both ways. The troops have done a great job losing the war.

    Not to be out done, Dennis Kucinich, who has been stoned since August 1, 1990, apparently, yips;

    “Our soldiers didn’t lose the war,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. “I maintain the war was lost the minute the White House fabricated a cause for war.”

    How did the Bush White House fabricate a cause for war when we’ve been at war with Hussein since he invaded Kuwait, Dennis?

    But at least fewer Republicans are jumping ship like they did earlier this year;

    “Whether or not some choose to acknowledge it, we are at war with militant Islamists who seek our destruction,” Ros-Lehtinen said. “Yet some on the other side of the aisle today announced that the war is lost in Iraq. This comment shows little understanding of the ability and determination of our men and women in the Armed Forces.”

    But other Republicans, like Chuck Hagel, can’t help themselves from caving in to the anti-war rhetoric from Reid, like he did this morning in the Washington Post;

    We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.

    The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff — with U.S. troops caught in the middle. This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities.

    See? If the President just signs on to the Democrats’ $40 billion of pork and wasteful spending everything will be just fine. If the President capitulates and surrenders to the Democrats (and their al Qaida allies), we all win, sort of. Nevermind that a withdrawal timeline was never part of the trumpeted ISG study, and is the major point of contention between the Democrats and the President.

    When Democrats don’t fund our troops, it’ll be the President’s fault that he’s still leading the nation instead of sticking his finger in the wind like Hagel.

    The Democrats are adamant that the President sign their ill-crafted and cobbled-together legislation even though they, themselves, don’t believe in it. But it’s all they can get passed – and they aren’t sure what Plan B should include. From Reuters via WaPo;

    But when a Democratic-controlled panel of Senate and House of Representatives members meets on Monday to iron out differences between their respective bills, the product is expected to contain 2008 withdrawal dates.

    Many lawmakers have been speculating those dates might be nonbinding, as sketched out by a Senate-passed bill.

    More non-binding BS. And the President told them a month ago he was going to veto their sludge, so why are they just now getting around to “mulling” their options as AP reports;

    Democrats are considering their next step after President Bush’s inevitable veto of their war spending proposal, including a possible short-term funding bill that would force Congress to revisit the issue this summer.

    Another alternative is providing the Pentagon the money it needs for the war but insisting that the Iraqi government live up to certain political promises. Or, sending Bush what he wants for now and setting their sights on 2008 spending legislation.

    This is what is considered “leadership” by the Democrats. Instead of dictating what they’ll accept, they navel-gaze and pontificate and keep their fingers crossed that more troops will die in Iraq so the American people will back their assanine duct-tape and baling-wire spending plans.

    But they can’t dictate, because what they won’t admit is that the majority of Americans don’t trust Democrats with foreign policy. If the majority of Americans had the opinions on the war that the Democrats claim we have, they’d have a bullet-proof majority in Congress instead of a razor-thin majority. And Nancy Pelosi’s poll numbers wouldn’t have tanked after her ring-kissing exercise in Syria.

    But don’t worry. When Hillary is President, she’ll appoint her husband to be a roving diplomat, according to AP via the Washington Times;

     Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she would make her husband a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation’s tattered image abroad.
        “I can’t think of a better cheerleader for America than Bill Clinton, can you?” the New York Democrat asked a crowd jammed into a junior high school gymnasium. “He has said he would do anything I asked him to do. I would put him to work.”

    Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place? Half-assed engagements with our nation’s enemies like Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, East Timor, Iraq again, the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Rwanda. And don’t forget his apologies to Africans for our role in the slave trade.

    And then to provide some comic relief, Clinton makes this bizarre statement;

    “They have shown contempt for our government,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We’ve got to get back to having qualified people, not cronies, serving in the government of the United States.” 

    As if Whitewater, the missing FBI files, the Travel Office firings, Vince Foster’s death, the IRS investigations, the Kathrine Willy seduction, the Juanita Broadrick cover-up and all of the other, more obvious and famous corruption, crony-ism and deception never happened.

    Yeah, we need more of that.  That’s real Democrat leadership.

    At Hang Right Politics, COgirl reports Nevadans’ opinions of Harry Reid’s comment.

    Dafydd at Big Lizards analyzes the events in Iraq that Reid used to support his pre-emptive surrender.

    No rant against Reid is complete without Joe Lieberman’s response;

    With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

    Michele Malkin has anti-war quotes from John Edwards, email responses from troops and pointed me towards Mohammed from Iraq the Model who asks;

    Instead of telling us to stop fighting back, I’d like to see some people stand up and protest the crimes of the terrorists and tell them to stop the killing and destruction…turn the stop-the-war campaign against the terrorists, is that too much to ask for?

    If we can’t even blame the lone guy that gunned down 32 people last week, how are we gonna summon the testicular fortitude to condemn an entire organization of psychopaths? I guess those poor Iraqis must be laboring under the misperception that we’re a rational people.

  • Biggie as a fearmonger

    Zbigniew “Biggie” Brzezinski, National Security advisor to Jimmy Carter during the decade of National Security advisors with heavy European accents, decides to provide his worthless opinion in the Washington Post on the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the general and vague dangers of having Republicans fighting terror that he calls “Terrorized by the War on Terror”;

    The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

    The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

    The only damage these three words have done has been propagated by the Left in denying that there is a terror threat. The Left’s pooh-poohing of the threat of terrorists against Americans is the greatest danger to our security.

    But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that “a nation at war” does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being “at war.”

    So, by describing the war in simplistic terms that everyone can understand, the Republicans are coming for our children under the guise of fighting Islamists. Biggie continues on describing in simplistic terms why we should be afraid of our Republican government while he doesn’t provide one concrete example of the government’s abuse of it’s newfound power in those three magic words. He contends that by calling it a War on Terror, it somehow has the force of law. If that’s not fearmongerng, I don’t know fearmongering.

    If you wade through Biggie’s idiot rant about security checkpoints at the Washington Post, you discover that somehow security checkpoints in Washington are worthless symbols of this administration’s fearmongering. The Washington Post is a private company who sells it’s stock on the New York Stock Exchange – President Bush didn’t personally or indirectly erect the metal detectors in WaPo’s foyer. In fact, most of Washington was hiding behind metal detectors and security badges when I first moved to Washington DC in 1999 – more than two years before the evil Republican neocons attacked the poor Muslims, Biggie. That was when government employees were afraid of another attack by the Michigan Militia.

    The record is even more troubling in the general area of civil rights. The culture of fear has bred intolerance, suspicion of foreigners and the adoption of legal procedures that undermine fundamental notions of justice. Innocent until proven guilty has been diluted if not undone, with some — even U.S. citizens — incarcerated for lengthy periods of time without effective and prompt access to due process. There is no known, hard evidence that such excess has prevented significant acts of terrorism, and convictions for would-be terrorists of any kind have been few and far between. 

    Ya mean like these poor innocent muslims have been victimized, Biggie? How about how Arabs are inflicting their barbaric forms of justice on the rest of us? How many terrorists have we beheaded on video? Have we dragged any of the Guantanamo residents through the streets or hung their bodies from overpasses? Do you recommend that we just let the Islamofacists do what they please like they do in Thailand? And how about some examples of this alleged abuse of the civil rights of the people who don’t believe in civil rights anyway? Others can’t find examples either, Biggie, no matter how hard they look.

    Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, “Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia”? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions.

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. This from the guy who didn’t get exercised about 10,000 Soviet combat troops stationed 90 miles from our coastline to prevent us from reacting to the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The guy who let communist guerillas run rampant throughout Central and South America and Africa. The guy whose President was able to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue on his inauguration day in full view of his constituency, but who’s successor, four years later, had to make the trip in a bullet-proof limosine because the Carter Clowns had made the world too dangerous for our leader to walk in his own country amongst the people who’d elected him.

    Why shouldn’t there be a reasonable attempt to protect our citizens, Biggie? Just because you don’t give a tiny rat’s ass, doesn’t mean the rest of us shouldn’t. I don’t see how a reasonable person can even think that our government is a bigger threat to our citizenry than a culture that already plans our irradication. Honestly, I hope you’re next.

  • WaPo’s Eugene Robinson and bumpersticker journalism

    Columnist Eugene Robinson researched for his latest column from ANSWER posters;

    The “mission accomplished” president, once so full of certainty and swagger, isn’t telling Americans that victory is proximate or even inevitable, just that it is still possible.

    When I heard those words, I thought that either the president had decided “can be won” is now the outer limit of public credulity, or — foolish me — that maybe he had finally begun to see Iraq as it is, not as he would like it to be. But then he reverted to form, raising the specter of the Sept. 11 attacks, and the speech sounded like just another attempt at spin control rather than the product of any sort of presidential epiphany.

    Sigh. The White House remains an epiphany-free zone.

    Iraq had nothing at all to do with Sept. 11, as Bush himself has grudgingly acknowledged. Yesterday, Bush brought up Sept. 11 in the context of what would happen if the United States decided to “pack up and go home.” Iraq would become a haven for terrorists and a possible launching pad for attacks on the United States, Bush warned, much as Afghanistan was on that tragic day.

    One thing the president failed to mention was that the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq was zero before the American invasion, which was a big welcome sign for jihadists from around the globe.

    No one ever questions Robinson – it’s like he just allowed to say anything. “Possible to win” means it’s not impossible to win in Iraq, dimbulb. I know that’s tough for you to wrap your peanut-sized brain around, but take my word for it. You should listen to the whole speech rather than cherry-picking bumpersticker phrases. 

    So allow me to arrange for someone to counter Robinson’s idiot blathering - Christopher Hitchens;

    …[T]he presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a very dangerous al-Qaida refugee from newly liberated Afghanistan, was established [before the US invasion of Hussein’s Iraq]. The full significance of this was only to become evident later on. 

    The Bush administration never claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But it did point out, at different times, that Saddam had acted as a host and patron to every other terrorist gang in the region, most recently including the most militant Islamist ones. And this has never been contested by anybody. The action was undertaken not to punish the last attack—that had been done in Afghanistan—but to forestall the next one.

    Maybe Robinson should do a moment’s research before he tries to assemble bumpersticker slogans into a Washington Post column. I’d also remind Robinson that Abu Nidal died in his Baghdad apartment just a few months before the invasion. He’d been living there for more than decade. I guess that’s not a terror ist connection is it?

    More Robinson;

    George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of this administration encountered a dangerous, unstable Middle East and proceeded to make it more dangerous and more unstable.

    Yeah, right. How does a flat tire go more flat? The only thing that makes the Middle East more unstable is weak-kneed and ineffectual handwringing about the US using too much force in the region. Remember how Arafat almost broke his neck rushing to the negotiating table after the first war against Hussein, but by the end of the Clinton years, he was turning down sweetheart deals from Israel. That should be our example – those sixth century clods only understand force, but force without the crybaby intellectualism from braindead idiots on the WaPo’s staff.

  • Gathering of Eagles wrap up

    Wow! What a weekend. I’d like to thank the people who visited more than 43,000 times since 3pm Saturday and special thanks to Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs, Curt at Flopping Aces, Michele Malkin, Crotchety Old Bastard and all of the rest of the bloggers who linked me up to their front pages. I’m honored.  

    Mostly, I was truly humbled by the reaction and the traffic. The emails were just wonderful, even if I didn’t answer them all. Thanks so much. But honestly, it was just a continuation of the high I felt from being surrounded by my brothers and having several exhilerating discussions with them on Saturday morning. It was probably one of the best weekends I’ve ever had. Thanks to all.

    I suppose I should mention that I was linked up to less savory websites, too. I deleted the trackbacks, pingbacks and brokebacks because (mostly to my glee) they had some nasty things to say about me and us in general. The worst, though, were over at (surprise, surprise) the Huffington Post. And that’s mainly what this blog entry is about – clearing up some of the misperceptions of this blog and some of the reports I read from the MSM.

    First to the throngs of Leftists who are mad because I didn’t approve your comments, ya’all pretty much said the same things – it was as if you were working off talking points or something (that would never happen, though, would it). So I put up one negative comment that pretty much said everything the rest of you said.

    The same thing was evident in the HuffPo comments. Everyone was just yapping about “why aren’t the veterans over in Iraq if they support the war so much” – mostly the reason we veterans aren’t in Iraq fighting the al Qaida is that we’re too old and the military won’t take us back. Most of us probably would go – but, one thing we all realized looking at our generation all around us at the march – we’re all pretty old. One veteran told me, “Geez, we’re older than the WWII guys were when we came back from Vietnam.”

    But, betcherass, alot of us have our kids over there. So quit wearing out that stupid, ignorant cliche and find something else to bleat incessantly.

    And, yes, the video I took of the protesters’ area could be deceiving – if you didn’t bother to read that I had written that I got there at 8:30 am – 3 1/2 hours before the march started – while the hippies were still enjoying room service in the $600/night hotel room that their parents had paid for. The videos compared the participation early on. I know reading comprehension is problem for the Left who like uber-life-sized puppets and pretty yellow signs with Hitler-Bush pictures, so I’ll give ya’all a pass on that one. It was my fault so next time I’ll put up crayon drawings.

    And, yes, I am worse than Fox News (or Faux News which ya’all think is so clever apparently) – they’re the number one cable news network. We’re all worse than Fox News – that’s why they’re #1.

    But Fox News was just as bad as the other networks in their coverage of this event. All of the news trucks were parked on Constitution Ave – the little “S” part that divided the veterans from the Leftists. They were directly behind me as I filmed the protester’s part of the area. There were no TV news people interviewing the veterans early in the morning. They had thousands of people they could have been interviewing before the parade of clowns and they didn’t take advantage of that opportunity. Now, I know the Left is more spectacular and more flambouyant, but c’mon guys – you missed half of the story this weekend.

    As far as numbers go, I’d say the estimates of 30k veterans is probably right – but I’m no math whiz. If you look at the map of the event I posted from the Gathering of Eagles on Thursday night below, veterans occupied the area from the shaded area right (east) of the Vietnam Memorial all the way west to the Lincoln Memorial – every square inch, with exception of the part that the Park Police had fenced off around the Wall. 

    The Left was pretty much confined to the area west of the “S” portion of Constitution. Granted there were probably more that straggled up at the last minute, but that area was never full the whole time I was there.

    I read some report from AP  (can’t find the original story now, AP’s changed their links so often since Saturday) that claimed some poor hippie girl had her sign torn up and she was crying to reporters that some big biker dudes had accosted her; I doubt that it happened. For one thing, I can’t find the story on the web except where it’s been quoted by bloggers and as we’ve learned from dealing with AP, stories that turn out to be untrue, mysteriously disappear.

    The veterans stayed south and east of Constitution. The only Leftists that ventured over to our side were trying to provoke veterans. They paraded through our ranks waving their signs and shouting at the top of their lungs – even calling us “baby killers”. I guess some platitudes never get old. And most of them were tiny hippie girls. I never saw any of them get physically abused or their signs taken away – although I can’t vouch for any comments that might have been sent their way. All-in-all, veterans remained fairly civil. I guess, generally, they just wanted to protect the Wall, like they said – and they respect free speech. A concept lost on the Left.

    But I will admit, I saw one 60s-era hippie (who’d probably been at the Lincoln Memorial since 60s in a pot-induced state) get his sign mishandled on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The sign was something clever like “End the Bush-it” or a reasonable facimile. A burley biker-type grabbed the pole the hippie had holding up his sign. Immediately, three other burley biker-types forced the first to release the guy’s sign and the old hippie went merrily on his way – uninjured and feeling safe deep in veteran territory – waving what he thought was a clever slogan. Veterans policed their own ranks – and they aren’t so pleased as the Left to get thrown in jail, or have their own thrown in jail. They have jobs.

    And I’d like to know which part of my original report could be considered spewing hate. Sure, I don’t like ya’all on the Left, but the only thing I really “hate”, per se, is wet toilet paper. So I don’t know where ya’all got that.

    I guess none of ya’all see the irony in claiming that my videos and photos are somehow misleading, while at the same time you claim that you put more trust in the national news organizations’ pictures and videos. We all took pictures and posted pictures that would appeal to our particular audiences – to say one set is more trustworthy than the other is just lying to yourselves. I never claimed that the media’s pictures or videos were false – merely that they didn’t bother to show both sides. I, at least, showed both sides. I guess that’s spewing hate, huh?

    But what really gets me ta-gigglin’ is the email I got that claimed I somehow manufactured the number of veterans in my pictures. I guess if you weren’t there and your only frame of reference was that you saw the shoddy coverage by all of the networks, you’d doubt the numbers. But, please don’t tell me what I saw and filmed, OK? I’ll admit that I own a copy of Adobe Photoshop – but that damn thing keeps me confused. I’ve just recently figured out the cropping thing. Thanks for thinking I’m more adept at this computer stuff than I really am, though. I guess it’s like the “Bush is an evil genius/Bush is an idiot” paradox ya’all have goin’.

    And Michele Malkin’s prediction that the Left would put up the Washington Post’s one picture of a veteran in full blown insanity mode came to fruition on a leftist blog called “The Populist” (which seems to have a partner bog called DC Direct both written by someone in Michigan. Editor’s Note: The hardcase just sent me a comment and announced he’s not from California, so I’ve adjusted the entry to reflect what his IP address said. I’d post the comment, except he accused me of doing things with the President I’ve never been close enough to him to accomplish. I just broke the links to his websites because he doesn’t deserve the traffic) who wrote a piece called “Gathering of Eagles, and Just a Right Wing Nutjob Concert” which used the stereotype of mean biker-dudes who “flexed their collective testosterone stoked muscles and fists at those concerned about this so-called War in Iraq.”

    But on the other hand, several Pro-War rally participants stooped to destroying other people’s personal property. A sign was ripped up, by a Pro War Attendee. Which shows the new low that this Pro-War, Right Wing nut jobs will go to. To further their cause. 

    So this person who didn’t bother to attend, succumbs to the stereotypes and linkless news reports. I’d like to see some proof that some Leftists’ signs got destroyed. I didn’t see it and I walked the whole area about 10 times during the 4 hours I was there. That’s why my pictures are of the whole event, not some little corner of it like most of the media’s pictures.

    I resent being called “pro-war” – no one is more anti-war more than those who have to fight the wars. However, we’re not intellectually crippled by the fact that, in some cases, war is a neccessary evil. If you fool yourself into thinking that all wars can be avoided with a few kind words, you’re more a danger to yourself than anyone else.

    And you don’t try to make yourself sound more intelligent by insinuating that Michele Malkin and Ann Coulter are secretly lesbian lovers, gumball.

    YouTube has a video of one protester who tried to get to Wall – she was stopped by the Park Police and a companion with more commonsense. So, she flips off the vets.

  • Gathering of Eagles

    I gotta tell ya, I haven’t felt so much at home before in DC as I feel today. I’m going to leave the crowd counting to the experts – but not the Washington Post who wrote this crap this morning;

    Thousands of protesters, marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, began gathering this morning for a march to the Pentagon, but many of them were met by a peaceful rally of veterans groups and war supporters near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

    It was a classic example of grass-roots politics in Washington and of the strong emotions that the Vietnam War still exerts more than 30 years after fighting there ended.

    Get that? THOUSANDS of protesters were met by a “rally” of veterans. Sounds like the veterans were outnumbered, doesn’t it?

    The only “grassroots” were on the side of the veterans who had come at their own expense and with very little organization. I met four veterans who had driven up in a car from the Florida Gulf Coast and got into town the night before – that’s grassroots!

    Anyway I got there at about 8:30 this morning (after my regular Saturday morning breakfast of SOS at the Walter Reed messhall) and here’s the video I took of the THOUSANDS of protesters. As opposed to this video I took of the Gathering of Eagles a few minutes before. Quite a difference from what the Post reported, huh?

    Here’s what the protesters saw across the street that separated the two sides;

    There were this many veterans;

    And this many protesters;

    Pretty intimidating huh?

    As the morning went on the crowds on both sides grew and the Park Police began putting up barracades to keep the sides separated;

    Let me just pause here to tell ya’all that the Park Police were real pros. The Wall was well protected – they’d set up metal detectors and hand searched everyone who went to the Wall. This in effect kept the protesters away because they didn’t want to wait in a long line to get to the Wall. The Park Police stayed out of the way, but kept a close eye on the event. Real pros.

    Now, back to the event.

    Apparently age doesn’t always bring wisdom, in the case of these folks;

    And despite the fact that ANSWER and the coalition of weasels have tried to deny that the Truthers are a part of their movement, the Truthers were there;

    And I don’t even want to think about what makes some “Queers” more radical than others;

    The only TV interview I saw being taped was with a supposed “Iraq veteran” who opposed the war. He looked a little old and pudgy to be a recent veteran, though, so I have my doubts. We all remember the Stolen Valor vets of the Vietnam Era, and the media that was more interested in their anti-war comments than their acceditation.

    A few times, the veterans would chant “USA” so loud it could probably be heard at the White House. The protesters tried to shout them down (in those testosterone deficient high pitched squeals that make them the moonbats that they are), but when that failed, they just turned up the music on their speakers – a weak answer to the real passion they faced over the police barriers.

    I’ve been to veterans rallies before. The “Kerry Lied” rally in September 2004 outside the Capitol comes to mind. But this one was so different. There was so much more backslapping, hugging, handshakes, “Welcome home” wishing than I’d ever seen.

    In my opinion, this Gathering of Eagles rally has done more for the healing of the wounds these veterans have been burdened with for forty years than any wall or memorial could ever. It was if they’d finally been given the opportunity to face their oppressors. There were no sorrowful stares, no sympathetic words. It was all smiles and laughter.

    All of those years of anger that had been bottled up was directed against their common enemy – moral and intellectual laziness. The world had to listen to them, the citizens who had sacrificed and paid the price and came home to the disapproval of the citizens who had never spent an uncomfortable moment in their lives.

    One veteran told me, “We’re here because those guys who are fighting in Iraq deserve better than what we got when we came home. No one stood up for us, but by God, we’re standing up for them. And if we don’t, who will?”

    Welcome home, brothers.

    UPDATE: Welcome LGFers and Sweetness and Light folks

    Michele Malkin has photos up on her “blog burst” now. Curt at Flopping Aces has a round up of several blogs.

  • 36 hours until the Gathering of Eagles

    If you can get here, be there. Here’s the link for their website and all of the “paragraph 4” info you’ll need. I’ll be there about 0830 coming in on the Red Line to Farragut North station. I lifted the map from their website;

    UPDATE: The weather here has turned nasty and there may be snow on the ground by tomorrow, but the hippies are still crowding into town. I’ve seen large groups of them wandering the streets with their handlers for two or three days now.

    Two I talked to this morning were attending a conference on how to effectively protest. They were looking for a barber – sheesh, who’d have guessed a hippie would need a haircut to protest. the weather may make many stay in their cozy hotel rooms (paid for by their parents) or in the countless coffee shops on Pennsylvania Ave.

    And the Washington Post takes a nostalgic look back 40 years. Of course they mention the veterans that will be with the smelly hippies, but not a word about the Gathering of Eagles.

  • Ten more days

    The Gathering of Eagles is just ten days away. If you’re still deciding whether or not to come and you only need one more reason to push you over the edge, checkout this from Flopping Aces.