The Peacefulness of Antiwar Protesters
During recent anti-war protests in our Nations Capital, the peaceful hippies show, shall we say, a less peaceful side. Iraqi vets stand on the side lines and ask simple questions while the screaming, degrading crowd shows a lack of gratitude for, these former soldier’s, military service.
With great leaders like Mitt Romney trying to rally unity and self comprehension within our divided country with words like:
“What is the culture of this country, what are our underpinnings? We respect hard work … We are self reliant, we respect human life, we are a religious people… We are a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit.
“Iran must be stopped and can be stopped,” (Romney said to a standing ovation at the Herzliya Conference, an annual gathering of leading Israeli and American political figures and security specialists), Anti-war activists are saying George Bush must be stopped, George Bush can be stopped.
Is there no sense of gratitude anymore, in this great country, for this great military?
And what of congress? What messages are they sending? I say a message of weakness and disorganization is being trumpeted throughout the world.
A message of poll chasing:
Chuck Hagel: “What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?” Hagel asked. “Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.”
A message of uncertainty:
John McCain: “In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there,”
A message of irresponsibility:
Hillary Clinton: “I want to be very clear about this: If I had been president in October 2002, I would not have started this war,”
Hillary Clinton: “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will,”
Please Mitt Romney, with the help of God, save us.
West
Do you think anyone against the Bush policy is a hippie?
John,
I think you are.
You’ll notice I included McCain in as wrong, along with Hagel and Clinton.
Both sides here.
West
BTW Buchanan, Vigurie, Scowcroft, Warner, Brownback, all the generals……. All have spoken out against our policy in Iraq. Are you calling them all hippies?
John,
Clinton is a lot like you. Whatever comes out of her mouth is popular, while deep inside, she never loses that focus on the liberal agenda.
She claims to be for the war and has done decently in painting this picture for the public, but deep down she is far left on this issue.
You should really get behind her.
West
Answer question on comment 4???
West
I think anyone knows I am no fan of Clinton who reads the blog.
John,
Politically, you are the spitting image of Clinton though John. I don’t care if your a fan or not.
John,
She’s a better deceiver.
Lately, she claims to be:
1. for Iraq – (she knows the tide is shifting here)
2. anti globalist – popular
3. anti spender – popular
4. anti China – popular
5. anti regulation – popular
6. anti immigration – popular
What she is really:
1. anti war/ anti military
2. anti free trade
3. pro regulation
4. pro open borders/ amnesty
5. pro abortion
6. pro gay marriage
7. anti decrease tax
8. anti privatise SS
9. pro affirmative action
Only area where you too part is the war and that is because she has better forward observation.
John,
Did you go to the protests?
West
We all know why you cannot answer the question.
BTW Buchanan, Vigurie, Scowcroft, Warner, Brownback, all the generals……. All have spoken out against our policy in Iraq. Are you calling them all hippies?
John,
I am calling you a hippie.
John,
You’ll notice my words call the – screaming, degrading crowd shows a lack of gratitude for, these former soldier’s, military service.
hippies.
Don’t spin.
John,
Did you watch the video?
John,
Did you march in Washington with the hippies?
West:
You quote on McCain is taken waaaaaaaaaaaay out of context. McCain is simply describing what he correctly believes that the supports of the “no confidence” resolution are really saying… but NOT what McCain is saying.
I believe that you should update your original post according… otherwise, you are effectivly putting words in McCain’s mouth since anyone reading your post will misunderstand what McCain meant since you’ve taken it completely out of context and given it a totally different meaning than what McCain intended.
John,
You sure are taking MANY liberties when you paint that broad brush of “have spoken out against our policy in Iraq”… for example, many who might not have chosed to invade Iraq currently oppose a pullout and even support Bush’s surge plan.
Others who spoke out against the war actually supported the war overall, but were disappointed with some of our strategies or execution of the war.
Please be carefull about how you characterize this because, frankly, you give the impression that all these guys line up with the most liberal Democrats on this issue… and nothing could be further from the truth.
Rob,
McCain launched the most devastating anti-war campaign when it was still unpopular to to shout out against the war. McCain brought back the antiwar mentality.
Now, he stands as the surge expert. He has the administration in a headlock.
He has always presented himself as the bridge to the Democrats.
Show me where, McCain recovered fom the no confidence statement. I know he was saying his buddies the Deomcrats were voting no confidence but where does he clarify and shoe “confidence”?
He was railing on the troops not too long ago. Now he has confidence in them????
I stick by my statement:
A message of uncertainty:
Every, sain individual is banking on winning the war.
No one but Mitt Romney is discussing the real PROBLEM and coming up real solutions.
They are all casting their lines in the most “expected returning” areas.
West
Are you on drugs?
Ron Paul has the real solutions.
That Hillary inaugural promise sounds like “read my lips” all over again.
John,
Are you?
Westrook
This entire post is just recycled vomit from your past shallow BS. I don’t think anyone on this site takes your views seriously if they’re even in fact your own views.
Apparently the only way one can be against the elective destruction of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to America is to be “anti-military” or “anti-troops”.
Sorry, you’re going to have to do better than that.
.
9/11, according to Davie, was no immediate threat.
You are anti-military.
Billy Bop,
Thanks. I feel like my hard work is paying off when I see liberals like throwing out words like:
1. vomit
2. BS
Squirm you little worm!
Westrook,
Did you drink all the Kool-aid? Did you swallow all the nonsense about how Iraq was behind 9-11?
Did you?
Westrook? Are you there?
HELLOOOOOOO
Earth to Westrook, earth to Westrook, come in please.
Please reply to our last transmission.
David,
Do you have muliple personalities?
O’Rear End,
Wherefore art thou?
No, I don’t have multiple personalities but if you post in the middle of my night, I probably won’t get back to you within 34 minutes.
Are you going to answer the two questions, or not?
O’ Rear End,
Your “2″ questions are as flat as your head. Not worth even addressing. I will give you a little hint though and perhaps you can find it in you to answer you rown question.
The war against Terrorism doesn’t begin and end in Afganistan.
Careful, O’ Rear End, this may be the most important information of your lifetime. Think about it……
The Kool Aide question is “cool”………….