War Protesting, War Undermining

Another gem from Orson Scott Card:

"Lincoln, facing probably defeat in the election, called together his cabinet and handed them a sealed memorandum, which he directed that they should sign as witnesses, so that when, after the election, the document was opened, they would know that this was what Lincoln had written at that time.

...because McClellan was running with the pledge to let the South have its victory in the Civil War after all, the Confederacy based all its hopes on prolonging the war long enough for McClellan to become president."

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probably [sic] that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so cooperate with the Government President elect, as to save the Union between the Election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."



Card argues here that enemies of the United States listen to public opinion and presidential candidates and adjust war strategy accordingly - namely, they try to hold out long enough for the American public, and by extension American politicians, to tire of the effort and quit. What the Democratic Party has done the last five years is undermine the war effort. Which shouldn't be surprising, since that's the express purpose of their protests and non-binding resolutions and campaign stump speeches. They want to leave Iraq, so of course those groups fighting for control of that country need only wait long enough for US policy to change with the new prevailing winds.

I've written on this topic a few times:

'Jane's Back: The Effect of War Protests'
'Thanks For The Support, Dad'
'Render Them Hostile to Bush'
'Speak Up And Speak Out: The Portland Protest March'

One Last Time for Geoffrey

I'm not sure it's worth it to continue this, but in order to leave a record for posterity, I will revisit my experience in Geoffrey-land.

In his post, "Pathetic Gathering of Pseudo-Patriots" and in the comments that followed, Geoffrey called into question and otherwise ridiculed a group of counter protesters that call themselves Gathering of Eagles. When faced with the various facts that I presented, rather than debunk, dispute, engage or even aknowledge them, Geoffrey retreated to his I Hate Republicans cacoon.

In response to my blog post on the encounter, he proclaims that it is I that have ignored facts. Of course, the facts he offers have nothing whatever to do with the Gathering of Eagles. They are simply his excuses for his continuing hatred of Republicans.

Now, just who are the Gathering of Eagles? According to their website, they are:

We are wholly and forever committed to our brothers and sisters in uniform. As veterans, we understand their incredible and noble sacrifices, made of their own accord for a nation they love more than life itself. As family members, we stand by them, and as Americans, we thank God for them.

We believe that the war memorials are sacred ground; as such, we will not allow them to be desecrated, used as props for political statements, or treated with anything less than the solemn and heartfelt respect they–and the heroes they honor–deserve.

Then there is the blogger Indepundit who was at the protest and mingled with both sides. He took pictures and wrote a commentary on the Gathering of Eagles group.

In his latest comment on my last blog post on the topic, Geoffrey asserts that he has not belittled anyone. Let's review the original post in question so we can verify his claim.

His first sentence is not too promising:

I am going to belittle a group with whom I disagree.

Geoffrey keeps his promise by following up with these gems:

a bunch of out-of-shape, military-wannabes pretending to be a part of something that would destroy them if they actually were there

chest-bearing, pseudo-macho, pseudo-patriotic nonsense spewers

These people are the very embodiment of pathetic

And, of course, the title of the post is "Gathering of Pathetic Pseudo-Patriots".

Someone, somewhere, perhaps even in Geoffrey-land, has got to admit that those statements amount to belittling. Since the Eagles are comprised of many veterans, Geoffrey therefore has belittled veterans. That's the truth. Period.

Now, on to my "ignoring the facts" assertion that has him so flustered. In his original post, Geoffrey posed the question,

what, exactly, were they protecting and why?

Geoffrey cannot fathom why peace protesters would want to harm war memorials in any way. I often ask myself the same question. And yet it continues to happen:

Vietnam memorial in Corpus Christi, Texas
September 11 memorial in Emmett, Idaho
September 11 memorial in Naperville, Illinois
Medal of Honor monument in Indianapolis, Indiana
Veterans memorial in Irving, Texas
The Capitol steps spray painted during January protest march
And, of course, the flag and soldier burning in Portland.

Is it still so hard to understand why veterans would want to rally in order to protect the monuments that were erected to honor their sacrifice? Is it hard to understand why anyone would want to? Is it still so hard to understand why some may have become emotional-even angry-at the sight of anti-democracy, anti-soldier protesters and placards? Is it still so hard to understand that for most of these veterans this had little to do with Republicanism or President Bush?

Not for me.

My New Pal Geoffrey

Geoffrey strikes again. Read through his latest post and you'd probably think he and I had been arguing about the US Attorney firings, or maybe we were discussing conservatism vs liberalism, or the Bush administration's job performance. Nope, none of the above.

In truth, we were talking about the Gathering of Eagles, or as Geoffrey characterized them, Gathering of Pathetic Pseudo-Patriots. As I wrote before, Geoffrey mischaracterized them and their motivations, and I proved it to him. When faced with the facts, he threw a temper tantrum. Sadly, he still does not see his error.

The larger lesson here is that some people are so partisan, so full of hate and venom, that they can't entertain a single rational thought. Once you are pegged as a "con-servative wingnut" or a "socialist liberal", forget it. You get nothing but Geoffrey's. (As in, you just pulled a Geoffrey. That's what I'm calling it from now on.)

I mean, take a look at his rationale for ignoring the topic:

"True believers, be they Islamic terrorists, Christian fundamentalists, or Republicans, are always dangerous."

Are you kidding me?! In Geoffrey's world Republicans and terrorists are equal. The absurdity would be amusing if it wasn't so disappointing. He has singled out a huge portion of this nation's citizens and deemed them somehow less than he is. They are nothing more than murdering terrorists, and should be shunned. This attitude is silly, stupid, and dangerous.

Geoffrey writes,

"You don't like it that I refuse to listen to your complaints about a few anarchists at a protest rally?"

No, no, and no. He continues to completely miss the point, or at least forget what it was he was writing about in the first place. He pulled a Geoffrey on the Gathering of Eagles' counter-protest. I called him on it and he pulled another Geoffrey, and he continues to pull Geoffreys even now.

I don't care what he thinks of conservatism, or President Bush, or the Attorney General. What I do care about is his blatant and angry mischaracterizations of a group of protesters. They are mostly veterans, many still bearing the scars from the angry protests 35 years ago. They organized themselves in order to protect the monuments erected to memorialize the sacrifices they made. They were largely successful in providing that protection and in showing solidarity and support for the current crop of US armed forces and returning veterans.

The fact that this demonstration of support is needed is exemplified by the flag and soldier burning actions which occured that same day on the other side of the country. Though the other 15,000 peace protesters stood by and allowed the few to mar their march, you can be sure that had the Eagels gathered in Portland that day, none of those videos and pictures being circulated by the republicans/terrorists would even exist. For I doubt very much that the cowards would have had the courage to light fires and chant chants with a few thousand veterans standing watch.

You see, Geoffrey, those that oppose you are no more "pathetic pseudo-patriots" than you are. Maybe someday you'll grow to understand that.

"Render Them Hostile To Bush..."

NBC reported on their blog about 2 Pakistani boys who were recruited to be jihadists. The way that they were lured into becoming "freedom fighters" and suicide bombers is educational.

"We were told to fight against Israel, America and non-Muslims," said Muhammed Bakhtiar, 17, explaining why he wanted to become a suicide bomber. "We are so unhappy with our lives here. We have nothing," he said.

The terrorist recruiters preyed upon the boys' unhappiness and turned it into hatred. Hatred so intense and indoctrinated that the boys became willing to kill and die for it. This is not new. These are the tactics that terrorist groups have used for a long time.

What is interesting is that terrorist recruiters are not settling for poor Pakistani youth. They are also spreading their lies and hatred in the United States.

According to websites translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), terrorists are being instructed on how to join online discussion groups and blogs in order to influence US citizens' opinions on the war on terror and specifically our actions in Iraq.

Some excerpts:

"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war... and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American who pays his taxes so they will go to the infidel American army. This American is an idiot and does not [even] know where Iraq is... [It is therefore] mandatory for every electronic mujahid [to engage in this raiding]."

"Obviously, you should post your contribution... as an American... You should correspond with visitors to this forum, [bringing to their attention] the frustrating situation of their troops in Iraq... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known (as classmates... or members in a club who played baseball and tennis with you) who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves..."

"Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God..."

"You should enter into debate or respond only if it is extremely necessary... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government..., which will... render them hostile to Bush... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote ton bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible."

That pretty much speaks for itself.

I would also like to point out how aware terrorists are of the battle for public opinion. This corresponds with the assertions I have made recently in regards to war protests; that the very people our soldiers are fighting are aware of the protests and the effect they have on public opinion. They know that if they simply wait long enough they won't have to defeat us, we will eventually give up and go home.

Speak Up And Speak Out: The Portland Protest March

I don't know, Geoffrey, why would veterans groups want to stage a counter-protest?





The Portland Insight had reporters and photographers at the march who verified what went on ("It's all a lie. Period.").

The news outlet wrote an editorial titled, "Rudeness Mars Peace Message".

Rudeness? I don't know about you, but I didn't watch that video and think, golly that was rude.

From the editorial:

This splinter group of protesters showed its support for “peace” by burning a U.S. soldier in effigy. It exhibited its supposedly pacifist nature by knocking a police officer off his bike — an action that brought out the police riot squad.

Perhaps the most disturbing scene of the afternoon, however, involved the man who pulled down his pants in front of women and children and defecated on a burning U.S. flag. This disgusting act actually elicited cheers from some members of the crowd, but we hope that the emotion it produces in the community is one of revulsion.

The editorial claims there were 15,000 protesters in the march. If the people depicted in the editorial and the pictures and the video were just a minority splinter group denounced by the real peace activists, why didn't a single member of that 15,000 strong march speak up?

They were activist enough to speak out about actions taking place halfway around the world, but apparently not activist enough to speak up when the atrocity happens right in front of them.

Hat Tip: The Stupid Shall Be Punished

Don't Confuse Me With The Facts

UPDATE

Geoffrey has offered an apology, of sorts, on his blog.

I say of sorts because while this line,

"For my tone, for my shortness, and for my rudeness I apologize.",

sounds like an apology, this line,

"I mean no disrespect to those who hold views different from mine, but the simple truth is that, for me, because of the utter failure in every way this Administration has been and continues to be, I do not believe that conservative views as they are currently constituted in the United States have any credibility or should be accommodated as having any credibility. If this offends, I offer no apologies",

casts just a dash of suspicion onto his sincerity.


I wish I had the time to go find a picture of a kid plugging his ears saying "I can't hear you, I can't hear you...!" because that fits this so well.

I recently alluded to a counter-protest that occurred last Saturday in Washington DC. These counter-protesters were ridiculed by Geoffrey Kruse-Safford on his blog. I thought he profoundly misunderstood the motivation behind the march, so I attempted to educate him.

Here's what I wrote:

According to the NY Times, Saturday's protest was organized by the ANSWER coalition. Which, of course, is a splinter group from the Worker's World Party.

Here is an example of these protestors and what they have done in the past.

As for why people might think these groups would deface the monuments in Washington, it might surprise you to know that it's happened before. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, to name a few.

So when a protest is organized by a well known socialist group, and these groups have a history of vandalizing war memorials, I don't think it's terribly odd for a group of veterans to feel it necessary to protect them this time around.

Wanna know how he responded? I quote:

It's all a lie. Period.

I couldn't care less about anything you say here

Honestly, I don't care what you say

You have a right to your freedom of speech, and I have a right to my freedom to ignore you for many good reasons.

OOOO, they burned a flag! Call out the constitutional amendment! I swear, if I ever attend a gay wedding ceremony, I will burn a whole bushel of flags to cook the hot dogs at the reception! You people are pathetic.

Glad we could have this little chat.

Thanks For The Support, Dad

The following was printed in the Times-News Sunday, April 8, 2007

Boise had an anti-war rally over the weekend. The parents of a medic in Iraq spoke at the rally, and were quoted as saying, "It's hard to maintain morale with a lack of a mission."

Perhaps the bigger threat to troop morale is having the parents of your unit's medic speaking at anti-war rallies.

Or maybe it's having members of Congress essentially buying, and even more perverse, selling, votes in order to pass legislation hastening withdrawal.

Maybe morale is hard to muster when news outlets pander to war protestors in Washington while ignoring or downplaying 30,000 respectful, US flag-waving, veteran supporters of a worthy mission.

I'm sure happy thoughts abounded when Jane Fonda, that great lover of America's military, was a noted speaker at last January's war protest.

How are we to expect our soldiers' morale to be high when we bombard them with political rhetoric that they have failed, that they're "stuck in Iraq" because they're stupid, and that their lives and the lives of their fallen have been "wasted" on a country and its citizens- citizens who, until recently, were ruled by a genocidal dictator allowed to maintain power by a world community more interested in his bribes than in stopping his atrocities; a world community apparently convinced that since he "contained" his murders to his own people, it didn't warrant intervention.

If troop morale is low, it would be because instead of giving hope and resolve to our soldiers and the people of Iraq, America tells them sorry, it's much too hard, the price is too high, it's time to quit and come home.

Jane's Back: The Effect of War Protests

In January 2007 there was a war protest and march in Washington DC. Speakers at the rally included the usual politicians and Hollywood luminaries. One name stuck out at me though: Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane. Ms. Fonda is infamous for her Vietnam War era outspokenness, when she spoke at college campuses extolling the virtues of communism, called herself a socialist, and told students we should all "pray on your knees that we would someday become Communist." She also called returning POWs "hypocrites and liars" for saying they had been tortured despite Fonda's claims the previous year that US POWs were treated well. Perhaps most infamous is her trip to North Vietnam during the war. On this trip she made ten radio addresses propogandizing about the goodness of North Vietnam and how US soldiers were "war criminals". She was even photographed laughing with enemy soldiers while sitting in the very same anti-aircraft guns that were used to shoot down US planes and ended in the pilots' torture and death.

Many have accused Jane Fonda of treason. They say she aided the enemy during a time of war. This is what came to mind as I read that she had spoken at the anti-war rally- the first time she has publicly protested the Iraq War. It is interesting to note the juxtaposition of her actions 35 years ago with the current round of protests. It seems most have learned a few lessons from Vietnam, as no one calls soldiers baby killers, war criminals, or "hypocrites and liars" this time around. In fact, these protestors take great pains to pledge their support to the troops.

However, despite these self-imposed limitations on their rhetoric, are the protestors aiding the enemy? This is a charge vehemently denied and one that will earn the accusor swift condemnation. But I wonder if it is true?

The Wall Street Journal interviewed Bui Tin in 1995. He was the North Vietnamese officer that forced the South's surrender. He said that the anti-war movement in the US, including the protests and statements made by Jane Fonda and others, were "essential to our strategy" and that North Vietnamese leadership listened to the US news reports "to follow the growth of the American anti-war movement." He further stated that "through dissent and protest (the US) lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." The North Vietnamese strategy became one of holding on long enough for the protestors to win the war for them. Eventually the protests forced the US to withdraw from Vietnam, leading to the Communist takeover of the entire country. This communist government, the one that Jane Fonda told us to pray for, went on to kill an estimated 2 million people in the years immediately following the war.

How does this apply to Iraq? If anything, the battle for public opinion has become even more important since Vietnam. In February 2004 CNN reported on a letter written by al Zarqawi and intended for al-Queda leaders in Afghanistan. The letter details Zarqawi's concern over American resolve, and explains the next steps the terrorists would take. In order to make things worse in Iraq and test US resolve, Zarqawi pledged to incite sectarian violence by singling out Iraqi targets to bomb. Less than a year later the Samarra mosque was destroyed and sectarian violence became a daily occurence. Now, one year after that terrorist designed bombing, US public opinion has been swayed, Jane Fonda is again marching in protest, and our Congress is passing "non-binding" resolutions denouncing the war. Are we due for a repeat of history? What will be the death toll this time as we abandon another country to chaos? Will Iraqi terrorists consolidate their power to the tune of 2 million murders, just as Communist North Vietnam did? I hope we won't have to find out.