No patriotism to question

Antiwar Protest Held in Washington

Thousands of protesters marched through the streets of Washington today, from near the White House to the Capitol, where they planned to stage a “die-in” to demonstrate their fervant opposition to the war in Iraq.

Protesters and counter-protesters started to gather by 8:30 a.m. for the first major anti-war protest in Washington since January, which is expected to be followed by a week of civil disobedience in the area intended to shift the anti-war movement to a more confrontational phase.

I’ll be interested to see actual coverage of this event, as weekend demonstrations have been rather lame over the past few years. Weekday schedules seem to do better, as it’s a nice excuse to cut class or skip work. But more often than not the events have sort of petered out when it’s the demonstrator’s own time on the line.

Though I guess the big “general strike” on Tuesday was a total bust. I didn’t hear one peep about it, though I had left a comment on the official site wondering where everyone was.

Anyway, I’d also like to point out this comment left on this week’s post about the defacing of the Vietnam War Memorial:

Hmmm, right in time for the Gathering of Eagles thingy. How convenient.

And Malkin makes a Youtube video that pretends to be a news story – about this “atack” – and wraps it up by advertising the Gathering of Eagles event. She uses the Wall for promotional purposes.

The Wall’s being attacked alright. Sickening.

Posted by Thom | September 14, 2007 3:29 PM

What Thom seems to be missing is that the Gathering of Eagles event was scheduled for this weekend in response to the the anti-war protests (organized by ANSWER), not the other way around. He seems perfectly willing to make a connecting with the upcoming patriotic event, thinking that the pro-military crowd would deface its own monuments to score points against the antiwar crowd. But he apparently isn’t nearly so quick to connect the antiwar event with the defacing, conveniently ignoring the long history of military monument defacing by the the unpatriotic protesters.

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, of course. My opinion is that Thom’s line of reasoning seems idiotic.

Here are some pics of the resistance and of the Gathering of Eagles at Victory Caucus.

Comments

  1. Unfortunately by being ‘tolerant’ of people who actively comit treason against the United States, we have effectively ended any real dialogue regarding what we are doing and why. We should be discussing what Alan Greenspan has had to say on the subject, instead of what a bunch of protesters are doing.

    AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil. In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies. However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. ‘I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,’ he says. Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

  2. Maybe you guys should listen to the voices of dissent and not be so quick to accept everything the president and this admin says and does. Accepting everything as gospel is neither being a Traitor or a Patriot, but a damn fool.

  3. ‘Maybe you guys should listen to the voices of dissent and not be so quick to accept everything the president and this admin says and does.’ ‘Accepting everything as gospel is neither being a Traitor or a Patriot, but a damn fool.’ Yea Theodosa I listen to you. Then I laugh. And then I shake my head in utter disbelief. I really can’t fathom the idea that there are adults out there who really hold the naive belief that appeasing a bunch of terrorists who are firmly committed to exterminate all us infidels [i.e. all non-fanatic Islamics] without mercy or EXCEPTION will instantly transform them into paragons of universal love. I accept President George W. Bush has made some minor ‘tactical’ errors of judgement in the war against the terrorists, but his overall plan for defending America and Americans against another 9/11 cannot and must not be altered to aussage a bunch of self-rightous pseudo-intelligensia who happen to be out of touch with reality! Remember Theodosa: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. (Sir Winston Churchill)

  4. By appeaser I’m sure you mean people who pay Saudi Arabia $80+ dollars/barrel for oil, right? That would be the same Saudi Arabia that Osama Bin Laden is from. The same Saudi Arabia that provides 40% of the foreign fighters our guys are facing in Iraq. The same Saudi Arabia that is funding fundamentalist mosques here in the US. Because if you don’t, then you are just being duped by a bunch of political propoganda, and that isn’t patriotism. I’m saying we need to fight a real war against terrorism. The place I’d start is by only fighting wars to win, since we seem to be involved in a Vietnam style quagmire right now. One which the idiot Bush administration is trying to widen to include Iran.

  5. Theodosa, you’re making a HUGE logical mistake. You’re assuming that (correctly) identifying the folks here as idiots at best, anti-American at worst, somehow means you must ‘accept everything as gospel’. Nice strawman, too bad it’s so obvious, too bad you need to paint the someone who disagrees with you as having made an argument they never made. Personally, I think we’ve been fed a bunch of crap from the administration quite a few times, and I think the war has been totally ‘mismanaged’, to use a popular term. However, these *IDIOTS* who claim that we can just magically ‘end the war’ by ‘redeploying’ our troops outside Iraq are so short-sighted and stupid as to be almost summarily dismissed. Our very own senate majority leader (among many others) lives in a fairy tale world where we somehow have it in our power to end the war by just leaving. Pathetic. We left the Iraqi people to get slaughtered by plainly evil forces a decade and a half ago when we told them to fight for democracy. Thousands upon thousands of them. If we do it again (as many want to), we won’t be worth the air we breath. *WE* become the force of evil, knowingly thowing untold thousands into early graves because we’re ‘tired’ of it.

  6. I should add, it is not ONLY for the good of others that we can’t just up and leave, that’s just the argument direced against those who think just leaving will magically ‘end the war’.

  7. We currently have two groups, stay the course, and let’s legislate defeat so we can get it over with,’ He said. ‘We need a third course which is an honest national discussion, what is it going to take to defeat the wing of Islam before it gets nuclear and biological weapons and starts taking out Seattle?’ Newt Gingrich on KXLY, Seattle.

  8. before it gets nuclear and biological weapons and starts taking out Seattle?’ Not sure why they’d take Seattle out. I live there, I’m pretty sure these aren’t the folks the terrorists need to be afraid of. Folks are marching all the time, for the exact same things the terrorists looking for, get out of the middle east, let democracy whither, etc. etc…

  9. Just a small point of clarification:

    he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that ‘the Iraq War is largely about oil.’ … ‘I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,’ Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, ‘I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.’

  10. Uh, what? What does the scheduling have to do with it? Malkin used the Wall in what was clearly an advertisement for the Gathering of Eagles event. And her video started out as some kind of ‘investigative’ look into an ‘attack’ on the wall that nobody – most importantly including the national Park Service – had by that time confirmed was anything more than an accident. THAT makes one wonder, at the very least. And using the Wall as advertisement prop is cheap and a dishonor to the peoples who’s names are on it. And it has today been confirmed as vandalism. I hope they find out who did it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091700973.html

  11. Scratch that – the investigation is continuing. It could still be an accident. And what in God’s name do you mean by the ‘long history of military monument defacing’? And what the hell does it have to do with people who protest this war?

  12. Okay…slowly: 1. Some antiwar extremists think it’s clever to deface military monuments. 2. Gathering of Eagles says that protecting monuments from vandalism is part of what they want to do. 3. Antiwar types, funded by ANSWER commies, organize big antiwar rally. 4. Gathering of Eagles schedules counter-rally. (Remember, part of what they do is protect monuments.) 5. Monument is defaced week of rallies. 6. Malkin covers defacing, wonders if the coming antiwar rally has anything to do with it, and makes sure that everyone knows that Gathering of Eagles will be there. (Because, remember, Gathering of Eagles tries to protect monuments from antiwar idiots) I guess I can’t really make it any simpler than that without crayons. And And what the hell does it have to do with people who protest this war? Good one. I wasn’t thinking straight and failed to realize that most military monument defacers are probably patriotic pro-military upstanding citizens who support the President and the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks for bringing me to my senses.

  13. Obtuseness doesn’t look good on you Murdoc. The GoE was founded after a supposed ‘defacement – wait for it – of the Capitol Building, not a war memorial. (http://veteranamerican.info/?p=44) And the ‘defacement’ of the Capitol was spray paint on the steps. It was washed off. And then they went looking for every imagineable thing they could find that could be construed as ‘defacement of war memorials’ – and blamed them all on and linked them all to anyone that opposes the war. That includes one you linked to, the memorial to Betty Ong. Her memorial – which is in the form of a mural which includes several people from Chinatown – was tagged by graffitists. It has nothing to do with the war, yet you and Malkin happily include it so people can make that inference.

  14. Thom: Okay. So you’ve confirmed that I was right when I said ‘2. Gathering of Eagles says that protecting monuments from vandalism is part of what they want to do.‘ Thanks. You asked ‘What does the scheduling have to do with it?‘ about Gathering of Eagles. You also wondered what ‘military monument defacing‘ and ‘what the hell does it have to do with people who protest this war?‘, and I must apologize. I said I was going to go slowly and then I finished with sarcasm. What I was getting at was that antiwar types had likely defaced the Vietnam War Memorial, and that that apparent vandalism was part of what certainly appears to be a larger campaign of vandalism. And that that was part of what justified the Gathering of Eagles rally. How that is obtuse I really cannot see. Are you suggesting that none of the war memorial vandalisms has anything to do with antiwar protesters? Maybe, but then who’s doing it? Just total random coincidence? Please explain. Also, what’s up with the Betty Ong memorial story whining? Just forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown? Just regular old graffiti escalation with epoxy? Do you know who did it and their motivation? I haven’t seen it, so please enlighten us. ***NOTE: What follows is sarcasm*** All of the Gathering of Eagles participants who were arrested for violating various laws certainly reflected badly upon the pro-military organization. They should have followed the example of the peaceful antiwar demonstrators who simply want everyone to get along in kindness and love. ***NOTE: The previous paragraph was sarcasm.***

  15. I don’t know what an obtuseness is, but by all means leave it on, Murdoc. You don’t want the ever effeminate Thom getting sweet on you? I’ll just bet he says you’ve got a pretty mouth next. Not that there’s anything wrong with that… I’m sure all those monuments being defaced was the act of some whacky young Republicans out for a night on the town. You see stuff like that all the time. Blacks burning crosses in other black people’s yards or leaving nooses in their trees and stuff like that. Yeah, what a hoot. Fortunately that only actually happens in Thom’s little fairy fantasy world.

  16. It’s interesting that the discussion over this event is pretty much about whether the ‘big awful crime’ here was not so much the defacing of the monument, but whether or not mentioning it in the same article as the GOE event was somehow a dispicable, immoral act. Wait, did I say interesting? I meant disgusting.

  17. Wait, guys… you are forgetting that it could still be an accident! I mean, seriously, who hasn’t accidentally left their bottle of petroleum-based liquid open, at just such an angle in their backpack that it happened to spray all over a national war memorial? It’s just an honest mistake I’m sure.