Protestors At Pentagon Aim To Destroy Morale?
The following is an e-mail from an active-duty officer currently posted at the Pentagon, decrying those that congregate outside the entrances to the facility to protest the war. Usually, the protests involve a handful of disorganized and mostly quiet people. This morning's protest, however, got ugly very fast:


I'm a lieutenant colonel currently assigned to the Pentagon. The area around our Metro entrance is a popular location for moonbat protests; there's a nice lady who stands out there maybe once a week with a sign. Occasionally, there are others. Of course their signs accuse us Pentagon types of genocide, etc., but imbued in their citizenship is the right to be cluelessly ignorant. Those of us in queue to enter the building are instructed not to react. It's hard to comply, but the policy prevents escalation.

This morning, it took every ounce of professionalism not to react. For today, the moonbats were highly organized...about 50 of them. Two were arrested for getting out of line during just the 2 minutes I was out there. They had all the typical moonbat signs..."No Blood For Oil" and "Remember Fallujah" (this one held by a nice 70 year old lady...I do remember, ma'am, how the local residents strung up our contractors). The largest poster trumpeted a "There Are No Innocent Bystanders" theme.

I wish I had photos.

I've about had it with these intellectual midgets who don't understand we're at war. I wish I could compel each to read Hugh Hewitt's book "If It's Not Close..." as it explains our very real struggle in terms even a moonbat might comprehend. The constrast between this morning's protestors and the service of our troops in country could not be more stark. Even if the protestors were correct (and they're not), they're protesting the wrong building...we execute the President's orders. No more, no less. Go march in front of the White House, please.

Having said that, it's their right to protest. Bring it on. But I'm wondering if among your readers is someone in the D.C. area who could organize and execute a PEACEFUL pro-military demonstration at the Pentagon Metro entrance? You have no idea how much it would help morale.


I don't agree with my reader's assessment of the protest as some sort of mistake that wound up at the wrong building. I believe that the protestors intend on undermining morale among the fighting corps of this nation, weakening our military resolve to carry out the orders of the duly elected government which it serves. The protests aim at men and women like my reader (who asked me to withhold his name, for obvious reasons) to destroy their sense of purpose and duty. They want good and honorable people to leave military service so that the great evil they see -- American power -- crumbles, leaving us at the mercy of those who will destroy us.

For those who live in the DC area, I ask that some effort be made to counter the effects of these demoralizers. It won't take much. Men and women like this reader know that they have support, but when they don't see overt expressions of it once in a while and have to come to work every day to this nonsense, it grinds down the spirit. Certainly we have some patriots in the area who can organize a loose effort to simply stand at the entrance and thank those who protect us from our enemies?

[quote=Marine,Jun 22 2005, 09:57 PM]
Protestors At Pentagon Aim To Destroy Morale?
The following is an e-mail from an active-duty officer currently posted at the Pentagon, decrying the moonbats that congregate outside the entrances to the facility to protest the war. Usually, the protests involve a handful of disorganized and mostly quiet people. This morning's protest, however, got ugly very fast:
[color=blue]

They should be protesting in front of the White House not the Pentagon, IMO.

Its a nice word the colonel used to describe the mercinaries who were killed in Fallujah. Contractors? Who knows what these people were doing in Iraq. Were they killing Iraqis? Who knows what "security contractors" do? Tell me Marine, do you know what they do? When you go to someone elses country and throw your weight around you deserve what you get. Were they being paid the usual $1,500 a day? Thats my taxes paying for those.

HA!

They can't get away with THAT this time. It ain't workin'.

You see, the protesters today are backed by the very people who are the PARENTS AND SPOUSES AND KIDS of allll those brave people over there in an untenable "police action" position - NO CHOICE AND NO FAULT OF THEIRS.

Nope. It's the BRASS that's the target. And the PENTAGON is their "nest".

Absolutely appropriate place for an energetic and prolonged PROTEST of LOUSY PLANNING AND LEADERSHIP at the CIVILIAN AND PROFESSIONAL MILITARY LEVEL.

What say, Barney Frank...now that yer retired AND CAN ILLEGALLY WEAR AN AMERICAN FLAG as a SHIRT during "Rolling Thunder"....don't cha think it's time to STEP TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LINE and REALLY protect the "flag"....the real grunts who are doing the REAL work. You KNEW it was a bad plan from the getgo at gitmo....yeah...you knew.

Yep!



Great! Don't tell me...I get to go hang out and protest with more Republicans...I hate that! Yeah, I think I know some people.



That's very true. I sure wish I knew some Democrats who were willing to go?

Really ? I don't see no war nowhere.
When did congress vote the resolution declaring the state of war ?

If the brass hasn't figured yet that it's acting illegally, might as well disarm them or they'll blow up in our face.

Bring the power back to the People.

Certainly not in the technical sense, but you might have a hard time convincing our troops of that.

Illegal?

Aren't you overlooking a small detail that Congress authorized the use of force?

Here's a statement from one of your favorite persons in the legislative branch who without reservation voted YES authorizing what you now call to be illegal.


U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
The Right Course on Iraq
- Prepared Floor Statement -
October 10, 2002

"I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain.

In two prior floor statements, I have expressed my views. Rather than repeat them here, I ask unanimous consent to include them in the Record right after these remarks.

I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror:

The terror of secret police in station wagons on street corners watching;
The terror forged through assassinations and brutal murders of anyone who disagrees with him;
And yes even of his own family members.

While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive.

I supported the Levin Amendment, which authorized use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council action, because it was the strongest resolution supporting a multilateral effort.


And, I believe a multilateral effort, through the United Nations, provides a strong moral imprimatur and as such is preferable to America's taking pre-emptive action that could have consequences tomorrow and years after that - consequences we cannot imagine or even begin to understand today.

The original resolution sent to Congress by the President would have authorized a broad and sweeping use of force whenever or wherever he deemed necessary - literally any place on earth.


It would have authorized the newly promulgated national security strategy of unilateral pre-emptive use of force in the defense of the nation in the war on terror.

The resolution before us does not grant such a sweeping use of force. Rather, the use of force is confined to Iraq and targeted toward forcing Iraq to comply with 16 Security Council resolutions passed in the wake of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Most importantly, I believe the Lieberman resolution becomes a catalyst to encourage prompt, forceful and effective action by the United Nations to compel this long sought-after and much-evaded disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.


Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East - let there be no doubt about this.


But the decision to cast this vote does not come lightly. I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the Administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

I believe this would be a terrible mistake.


But I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the Administration's approach - turning away from a pre-emptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force.

I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the Security Council has not yet taken this action. Nor do we, at this time, know if they will.

If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States.

Ironically, this authorization of use of force may well prompt the Security Council to act. Because if they do not, the United Nations becomes a paper tiger unable to enforce its mandates and unwilling to meet the challenge of this new day of danger.


For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm.


If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament.


The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way.


As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran.

Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time.

And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power.


And, so, it is my intention to vote yes on the resolution before us.


I do so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and with the trust that the Administration forge a coalition rather than go it alone.


And I do so with the fervent prayer that it will not be necessary to place America's fighting forces or innocent civilians anywhere in harm's way."

###

Illegal because the DailyKOS and Counterpunch has instructed you to say it is illegal, no thanks Picadilly, I believe the Congress determines whats legal in the USA, not some anarchist web site.

H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq

The following is the complete text of the House Joint Resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq.

HJ 114 RH

Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[Strike out the preamble and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text and preamble of introduced joint resolution, see copy of joint resolution as introduced on October 2, 2002]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

( SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721]

Are people referring to this when they refer to the Iraq invasiona as illegal?

Nuremberg Rules, in Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 U.N.T.S. 279, entered into force Aug. 8, 1945.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a)   Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:

Hey Marine,

Where are the 60 day reports ?



or "any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution" ?

I know you regard me very highly but I am not Congress and the President does not send the reports to me.

I would betcha if the President was suspose to send them that Congress got them though, don't you think? Or do you think the few democrats left on the hill would not be raising cain that they had not got them?

I think the 60 day reports are on the news everyday where the "defeated insurgents" are killing on average 2 American soldiers a day. The lite at the end of the tunnel message Chaney delivered has been heard before in a place called Vietnam.

Bloody Bush and his minions are destroying military morale. He spouts lies to send our troops into a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no ties to al Qaeda, and had no WMD -- and he sends them without proper armor or equipment and without enough of them to secure the countryside.

Hypocrites! Our troops' blood is on Bush's and Rumsfeld's hands.

Anti-war letter ‘insubordination’

Just when I think I have heard it all, I am surprised again! The writer of “Iraq mission ‘stupid’” (letter, April 14), obviously does not understand that his job as a soldier is to not question orders he has been given. By making the statements he did it is the same as stating that the orders his noncommissioned officers give him are stupid. This is insubordination and should not be stood for.

He also tried to disgrace the memory and service of those brave men who have lost their lives in Iraq by saying, in so many words, they have died for no reason.

These types of comments feed the enemy’s morale and give the impression that American soldiers are not committed to the cause. We must not make comments that feed the enemy’s morale. We are soldiers who fight for freedom, who destroy the enemy, who follow orders when they are given, without question. We are soldiers who fight so that our children do not have to. The letter writer has lost focus on why he joined the U.S. Army.

I spent a year in Iraq for the initial invasion. I am now deployed to Afghanistan, so I understand and believe in the cause I fought for in Iraq and am fighting for now. We are fighting battles abroad so that we do not have to fight them at home.

If the letter writer wants to be an advocate for the make-love-not-war cause, he needs to wait until he is discharged. Otherwise, he should drive on, keep his anti-Iraq war views to himself and soldier up, if not for himself, then for those who have died defending the very freedom he is abusing.

Sgt. Mark Leach
Afghanistan

Did Vietnam Anti-War Protests Embolden Our Enemies?
by Marc Bacharach on April 14, 2004 at 7:40 PM
1) “Both election results run counter to your main thesis. According to the 11/72 election, the American electorate, given a choice, overwhelmingly supported Nixon and winning the war.”

You seem to have minimized the 1968 Democratic riots, and the split ticket among Democrats, one of whom was the incumbent of the President that escalated the mess in the first place. Your overall problems with the article may be right, but Nixon’s victories do not prove that. Humphrey’s policy on Vietnam differed little to Nixon and McGovern was so extreme the other way, people naturally selected Nixon (I am being extremely simplistic, of course).

There are two assumptions that I believe you make in your post that I disagree with:
1- The anti-War movement caused our failure in Vietnam rather than the reverse, and
2- The anti-War movement tempered the military rather than policymakers, who simply made an objective analysis of the situation based on sound facts, and finally,
3- The anti-War movement was wrong

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth so if I am mistaken, I apologize, but these 3 assumptions seem to be the primary arguments made by people who blame protesters for Vietnam defeat. With respect to General Giap, the Tet-Offensive did not signify a beginning to the end… it signified, to many Americans (correctly, I believe) that there was no end and that after tens of thousands of lives, we were no closer to victory than we had been a decade earlier.

Much of the rest of your post, I believe, exaggerated the mistakes made in the article, attempting to paint the author as nothing more than a foolish partisan. I disagree.


2) “Blame for the Vietnam loss lies with political cynicism like yours and the malice of Anti-War leadership waving VC flags and chanting for Ho. Ask a soldier in Iraq (I'll give you E-mail addresses of members of my family and others).”

This statement again rests of faulty assumptions that I challenge:
1- The Vietcong would have surrendered in the absence of American protest,
2- Widespread opposition to the war was constant from the beginning, eventually wearing the military out
3- Military morale would have been extremely high, despite the massive casualties, the seemingly endless conflict, and the danger of serving in Vietnam, had only the American public been more supportive (which, in fact, they mostly were, up until 1968- see assumption #2)
Again, my apologies if I am putting words into your mouth but these assumptions are incorrect and represents a perspective on history that does not conform to what actually happened.

3) “It's simple logic: Anti-War protests lower our morale and raise the enemys'.”

In general, you are correct, but not always. Was Washington’s fight dependent on the British public’s reaction to the war? Did Germany continue in WWI ONLY because they knew Russians were against it? Much of the North did not support stopping Southern secession, but there is no evidence to suggest that it played a role in troop morale. As someone serving in Iraq, do you honestly believe that your morale is significantly lower since public opinion around Iraq is against the United States? The only time morale has been linked to public opinion in any serious way is Vietnam, and rests on the assumption that the war was winnable and that protest preceded failure.

Is The Anti-War Movement Responsible For Killing Americans?
By Cliff Kincaid

The so-called "anti-war" protests have been demoralizing to our troops, while Iraqi government officials have welcomed them. That is one reason why "Rallies for America" to support the troops are being held around the U.S. But there is increasing evidence that the anti-war protesters have caused the U.S. to fight a war that avoids Iraqi civilian casualties and puts American and allied troops more at risk of injury and death.

British broadcaster and journalist Jonathan Freedland of the London Guardian says "the anti-war campaign has helped shape the way the war itself is being fought." No wonder it appears that we are losing.

In providing largely uncritical coverage of the anti-war protests, the major media have failed to explore the impact of these demonstrations on troop morale. However, in Britain, the BBC interviewed an army tank driver's father who said the on-going protests are undermining the confidence of the troops. BBC said, "He believes people protesting against the war should be backing the men and women serving their country in the Middle East."

In China, Tao Wenzhao, deputy-director of the Institute of American Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said he thought the anti-war protests played a role in the decision by the American Muslim soldier to throw grenades into an officers tent in Kuwait. "Clearly, with all of the protests going on around his own country, he must have begun doubting his role in the war, and his nerve must have cracked," he said. Obviously, the Chinese see the protests as an instrument of war against the U.S.

Here, Ruben Duran, managing editor of the Michigan Review, Michigan's conservative student newspaper, stated the obvious: "We saw in the Vietnam War how antiwar rallies destroyed the morale of American troops. As quick as news travels, we don't need the troops watching CNN and seeing people rallying against them. We need to show them that we are going to support them." Duran helped organized a pro-American rally on the campus there.

But the impact of the protests has been more than demoralizing. Journalist Freedland noted that Operation Iraqi Freedom seems "to have been devised with one eye on the concerns of the anti-war movement." He explained, "The campaign began not with ‘shock and awe´ but a subtler knife, aimed at the surgical decapitation of Saddam Hussein and his regime. One night's bombing of Baghdad lasted no more than an hour."

Even after "shock and awe" came and went, Iraqi television was still on the air, and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense building was still standing. Freedland claimed the U.S. avoided massive bombardment of Baghdad because it "wanted to avoid a wave of worldwide revulsion" at civilian casualties. He said, "It's as if Washington had heard the peace movement's objection to this war – that too many innocents would die – and was attempting to heed it."

The New York Times confirmed this by noting that the U.S. has "avoided bombing as many as three dozen high-priority Iraqi targets for fear of civilian casualties, making it harder to achieve some of the air campaign's important goals…"

In USA Today, John Diamond and Dave Moniz reported that U.S. forces were fighting under constraints "designed to minimize world condemnation…" and that "coalition troops limit fire to avoid killing civilians, and forces deliberately steer clear of destroying electric plants and other infrastructure vital to daily life." They added, however, that, "There are already signs the limits are jeopardizing allied lives." They cited the downing of an Army Apache helicopter in a nighttime engagement south of Baghdad near Karbala. They said that because the Apache crews were ordered not to attack the power grid in the area of Karbala, lights from streets and buildings made it easier for Iraqi gunners to spot the aircraft against the night sky. A two-man crew was taken prisoner.

One complaint about the U.S. military intervention in Kosovo was that the U.S. was too anxious to avoid ground combat and conducted the war from the air. In Iraq, by contrast, Freedland noted that, "This time the Americans are doing precisely what was demanded of them: risking their own necks by sending in ground forces." But they are doing so with one hand tied behind their back. The immediate result was "Bloody Sunday," March 23, when American and British ground forces suffered serious casualties.

It appears that the anti-war movement has already had a major impact, and our troops are paying the ultimate price. The anti-war movement has achieved its "victory" — more American casualties than are necessary. They now have blood — American blood — on their hands. It´s a story that has to be told before more lives are needlessly lost. Our leaders should not conduct this war in an effort to please members of the Workers World Party.




Cliff Kincaid is President of America’s Survival and contributing editor of the AIM Report. A longtime investigative reporter and media critic, he currently specializes in coverage of the U.N. and other global institutions. Kincaid helps write and broadcast Accuracy In Media’s "Media Monitor" radio commentaries.

Yankee Go Home
Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT


Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.

Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said.

1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.

2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate."

3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience."

4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end."

5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed."

6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."

7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy."

8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out."

9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon."

Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

I clicked this link and I saw a picture of a soldier kissing a letter at the top of the page who looked like our own Dylan Garcia with a bandana.

It's a small world after all!

Would some nice neo-cons please get some signs supporting "whatever" (lol!) and walk around the Pentagon so this man will feel better?

KT

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/column...p-8955245c.html


Published: Jul 1, 2005
Modified: Jul 1, 2005 8:21 AM

Without a doubt a quagmire

By BOB HERBERT, The New York Times

NEW YORK -- The president who displayed his contempt for Iraqi militants two years ago with the taunt "bring 'em on" had to go on television Tuesday night to urge Americans not to abandon support for the war that he foolishly started but can't figure out how to win.
The Bush crowd bristles at the use of the "Q-word" -- quagmire -- to describe U.S. involvement in Iraq. But with our soldiers fighting and dying with no end in sight, who can deny that Bush has gotten us into "a situation from which extrication is very difficult," which is a standard definition of quagmire?

More than 1,730 U.S. troops have already died in Iraq. Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Fallujah last week.

Valdez, a corporal, wasn't even old enough to legally drink in New York. She died four days shy of her 21st birthday.

On July 2, 2003, with evidence mounting that U.S. troop strength in Iraq was inadequate, Bush told reporters at the White House, "There are some who feel that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, Bring 'em on."

It was an immature display of street-corner machismo that appalled people familiar with the agonizing ordeals of combat. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, was quoted in The Washington Post as saying: "I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the Army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops."

l l l

THE U.S. DEATH TOLL in Iraq at that point was about 200, but it was clear that a vicious opposition was developing. Bush had no coherent strategy for defeating the insurgency then, and now -- more than 1,500 additional deaths later -- he still doesn't.

The incompetence at the highest levels of government in Washington has undermined the U.S. troops who have fought honorably and bravely in Iraq, which is why the troops are now stuck in a murderous quagmire. If a Democratic administration had conducted a war this incompetently, the Republicans in Congress would be dusting off their impeachment manuals.

The administration seems to have learned nothing in the past two years. Dick Cheney, who told us the troops would be "greeted as liberators," now assures us that the insurgency is in its last throes. And the president, who never listened to warnings that he was going to war with too few troops, still refuses to acknowledge that there are not enough U.S. forces deployed to pacify Iraq.

The New York Times' Richard A. Oppel Jr. wrote an article recently about a tragically common occurrence in Iraq: U.S. forces fight to free cities and towns from the grip of insurgents, and then leave. With insufficient forces left behind to secure the liberated areas, the insurgents return.

"We have a finite number of troops," said Maj. Chris Kennedy of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. "But if you pull out of an area and don't leave security forces in it, all you're going to do is leave the door open for them to come back. This is what our lack of combat power has done to us throughout the country."

l l l

THE LATEST FANTASY out of Washington is that U.S.-trained Iraqi forces will ultimately be able to do what the American forces have not: defeat the insurgency and pacify Iraq.

"We've learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills," said Bush in his television address. "And that is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting, and then our troops can come home."

Don't hold your breath. This is another example of the administration's inability to distinguish between a strategy and a wish.

Whether one agreed with the launch of this war or not -- and I did not -- the troops doing the fighting deserve to be guided by leaders in Washington who are at least minimally competent at waging war. That has not been the case, which is why we can expect to remain stuck in this tragic quagmire for the foreseeable future.

The individual troops can lead, follow, or get the hell out of our way. We'll continue to tell the Joint Chiefs and the White House to end this war.

I agree with Amy, that a better place to protest would be the White House.

And I do agree that protesters have an equal responsibility to protest with some dignity and in a peaceful manner.

Now, Marine, I could take Diane Feinstein's speech and highlight completely different passages
and it would read quite differently. But what's the point? We both support the troops. I do not support the war itself.

These folks hardly look like radicals. They could be mothers of soldiers in Iraq.

I am in favor of citizen pressure on our leaders to bring this Iraq mess to an end.

Anti-war protesters march Saturday, March 19, 2005, in Cottage Grove, Ore. About 230 people gathered in this small Willamette Valley town Saturday to mark the second anniversary of the war in Iraq.

Yeah these folks are in Oregon, not at all the people refered to in the Lt.Col's statement

In that same photo expose' there is another real neat photo. I don't know if you saw it or not. I think these are the same bunch of people who took over that School in Russia three or four months back.



Pro-Chechen demonstrators hold a poster of the late Chechen rebel leader Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev and a banner that reads: "The best American is a dead American", center, during an anti-war protest in Istanbul, Turkey, Saturday, March 19, 2005. Thousands of Turkish anti-war protesters gathered in Istanbul's Kadikoy square for a march marking the second anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

I don't know where you're getting your information about Oregon, whether the picture is indeed an anti-war protest in front of the Pentagon, and how the pro-Chechen photo relates to any of this.

If you place your cursor on the photograph which you posted and click the right mouse button it will reveal what is refered to as "properties"

In your case it revealed the source of your photograph to be located at the following web site: http://www.hellblazer.com/media/iraq-kill-44/ Which is a collection of photographs compiled by the associated press. Each photograph has a caption identifying what the photgraph is of. That is how I identified your photograph as of an anti-war protest in Cottage Grove Oregon on 19 March, 2005. Adjacent to your photograph in the same collection was the Chechen photograph.

Similarly, you may verify my moonbat photos to source back to an anti-war protestors web site containing many photographs of anti-war protestors. http://www.carolmoore.net/photos/ Please note some of the "folk" photographed at this protesters web site make the moonbats I selected to appear relatively sane, I choose these two because the Pentagon was the backdrop.

Do you sense desperation in the hoarse voices of the pro-war contintgent? I sure do. Like blaming the antiwar movement because things are not going well in our little cakewalk for all that is good and true.


From the Democracy Now headlines....


Well, duh, Senator, thats because the news is bad.

And lets hope we can undermine them further, keep up the good work parents, students and friends.

If you can pull yourself away from the delusions the military PR machine would like you to swallow whole, consider this....

More than 8,000 Iraqis killed in insurgent attacks


June one of the deadliest months for U.S. troops in Iraq


Join up die or get maimed for nothing. Uncle Sam wants you do die for no reason.
Just say no.

See what I mean by desperation? Post some fringe group guy holding a sign , and they can pretend that the antiwar sentiment is isolated to a few extremists. Of course those of us in the majority know better. And they know it too.

Only 34% of Americans Say U.S. Is Winning Iraq War



Why join only to make us "less safe" in a war most say was "a mistake" just under half think "won't ever" work? Come to think of it if you are in the armed forces now, you should know most Americans do support your service, but they have figured out you are wasting your time. And guess what, the public sentiement against the war is gaining strength every day, so it will only get worse.

Even Bush's speech fell on deaf ears...
Bush fails to regain lost public support for Iraq war



BTW, we should not have gone to war for the last draft dodger who occupied the white house either.

If the war in Iraq is so important I cannnot figure out why Bush's twins and members of Congress sons and daughters are not at the Army recruiting station to serve their country. Just like Chaney they have better things to do with their lives. Do not wave the flag at me and say Iraq is of parimont interest to this country. Actions speak louder than words.

Marine, how about ''SAY YES TO SENDING YOUR CHILDREN TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES FOR THE SAKE OF THE HUGE AMERICAN ARMS INDUSTRY''

War is the most lucrative of businesses except perhaps for drugs and oil. They are all interlinked anyway. Since the war in Afgahnistan the production of drugs has gone up multifold. The Taliban strictly controlled how much was produced, now with warlords in control they are all on the make. Americans will buy the drugs.

I bet you anything, nobody is looking too carefully to see where the drugs money trail ends up. The last time they did that regarding Colombia it got too close the the President of the USA, Bush Snr. They called off the money trail investigators.

Even without the Downing St memo most intelligent people could foresee a time when war was necessary to make America less dependant on Saudi Arabian oil, especially after 911. In fact if you own a car you are probably bankrolling the weapons being used against your own troops. Mr Bush, an oil man himself, and Condi Rice who has an oil tanker named after her, and Cheney with his retirement collection all bound up with Halliburton, are hardly going to look for alternatives to oil. And since two of the three are not going to care who gets in in the next election you cannot expect any of the important people to be looking for an exit strategy in the near future.

I just think that students should start their own research on why America is in Iraq. That way they will know why they are risking their lives.

The price of oil has gone up and up, and the weapons used against the USA have been getting better and better. Is it any wonder?

They're no flakier than DU.

The (cheney) they're NOT, I've been to both sites!

Antiwar protests are not held to destroy military morale. Antiwar protests are held to destroy the war. Antiwar protests are propeace. Peaceful people do not destroy morale. Peace is uplifting.
Petitioning the government does not destroy military morale. Failure to adequately protect and provide for our military destroys morale.
Every inidividual has a guarenteed right topetition the government in any manner and in any way he or she wants.

Maybe the tough guys at the Pentagon just can't handle criticism.

Assuming that someone in the Pentagon actually wrote the dribble which leads this thread, the more I think about it, the more laughable this clown becomes.

He's allegedly moaning about little old ladies and hippies with signs? He's letting that get him down? Really? Affecting his morale?

Give me a break!

I sure don't want him to suffer that kind of anguish! Those FREAKS ought to know that he's got a "war" to win.

Sweet Creeping Hannity, don't those PINKOS know he's got bombing runs to plan from his air conditioned office.

He'd do real well with the real troops in Iraq...you know, the kids who are actually out there doing the dying.

No child left behind...

Posting articles accussing members of the military of routinely committing atrocities and calling what the troops do in the course of their duty immoral, illegal, and criminal most certainly does effect the morale of the military.

If a questionable situation does occur jumping to the conclusion that the troops involved are automatically guilty effects the military's morale, I can think of three or four times that has happened on this forum. Here with the military it is presumed guilty until proved innocent, a little backwards, eh?

And as far as being able to handle criticism me thinks you folks should stand before a mirror.

That would be a good reply, but there are almost no posts that say or imply that are there?

Iraq and Afghanistan are BY FAR the MOST sanitized news coverage of any war in the last 50 years, this embeding journalists ISN'T WORKING! The Bush administration is also the MOST secretive administration in history, classifying
over 10% more than previous administrations. We also have PROOF the intelligence was fixed, and the Nation was lied to,to begin the Iraq War.
So don't EVEN whine when some news stories come to light, and photos surface that aren't in the DOD's prescribed version of the war, and say it's aimed at destroying morale, IT'S AIMED AT REVEALING THE TRUTH, BUSH HAS SO PROTECTIVELY KEPT HIDDEN!

The act of protesting is just one of the many ways individuals may petition the government. It is a volunteer endeavor.
The current protests, that I assume you are referring to, appear to be protesting the government's involvement in the war in Iraq.
If the government (or rather when the government) pulls our military personel out of Iraq, the protests against the government's involvement in Iraq will end.
The protest that you are referring to that allegedly destroy military morale are not antimilitary protests.

If the government's failure to support our troops continues in not providing appropriate care or pay or protection, you can bet that most of the same protesters you attack will be back out on the street protesting (petitioning the government for redress) the government's failure to support OUR troops.

I think that some people automatically jump to the conclusion that antiwar protesters are antimilitary because they have been told or convinced by the government to beleive that.

It is the government that is being attacked. Rather than addressing the redress protesters seek, the government, in defencs, turns the petitions into some sort of attack on the military in the hope that individuals who have sacraficed for our government will attack the protesters on the government's behalf. It appears that this is what is happening here on this board and outside in the real world.

I assume that the families of military personel serving the government in the war in Iraq share some of the sames goal as I do: safe return, proper protection, appropriate medical care and pay. I assume that these individuals would also wish to make their beliefs known to the government and yet, I do not see these families petitioning the government in the form of peaceful protest. Are they writing letters, sueing the government, appearing before Congress?

We must seek common ground on this issue. I do not want individuals in the military to believe that I am protesting to destroy their morale. I will continue to protest the government's war on Iraq, seek the safe return of, proper protection of and sufficient support for our military.

To members of this board and appropriatly this thread "acitive US military issues that affect our lives", I ask, how do we seek common ground on the statement posed? What can antiwar protesters do to promote the message more effectively that we are antiwar and not antimilitary service personel? And, what can military personnel do to spread the word that antiwar protesters are not antimilitary personel?

Marine is right though that the losses in the Democratic Party began then at the 68 Chicago Dem Convention. Into that growing vacuum of power rose the GOP who represented the wealthy. They cleverly slipped on the mantle of "Morality" when of course the Party had become dominated by Robber Barons for whom "Morality" is Money.

The Dems were in disarray and though LBJ was a moral man mostly he was also a proud man and didn't want to "Lose" the War in Vietnam. The assasinations of the Dem leaders throughout the sixties also further weakened and fractured a Party that did try to represent the vast Majority of American interests.

We now have a cabal of Corrupt Corporate interests who are robbing us all blind while waving the flag in the face of those they are robbing. Those people who are fundamentally religious and are sincere are likewise being fooled by a phony "Born Again" who wouldn't know Jesus if He walked up and punched him in the nose!

The vast majority of Vets from WWII through the present conflict are Dem Leaders not the ChickenHawks. Those who support the troops don't just talk the talk, they walk the walk, and anyone watching Congress knows who's who, by watching what they DO!

In my opinion, I think the general overall swift conclusion as to why the Dems lost in '68, was simply the fact that (D) LBJ had us in one of the worse wars in our history and admitted that he had failed. I am sure, for many Americans, the ongoing 'Nam debacle represented to them what 'the Dems' brought to this country (war demonstrations) along with LBJ's comments admitting such turmoil with that war and refusing to accept the Dem nomination. LBJ was right in what he said at that time. If with anything that LBJ ever did in office, I probably respected him the most as to why he would not run for president again. He told the truth at that point. I think the majority of Americans simply wanted just about anybody else over a democrat right at that time. Even if Batman ran as a Dem, I think he would have lost simply based on the general consensous about the Dems and Vietnam by 1967-68. It simply did not matter who ran as the Dem nomination, because republicans at that time represented a new approach to the majority of voters. (not me... I was too young to vote and disliked tricky dicky).

It will be a sad day for freedom when people are not allowed to march for peace.

Even now, minions of of the Moron are spying on peace activists, including church groups.

Remember the woman whose son was killed in Iraq? The one who was hauled away in handcuffs outside a Laura Bush campaign visit?

What was this woman's great crime? That she had the courage to stand up and ask why her son died............she left the campaign event peacefully..........but outside she was talking to reporters. So we was hauled off to jail in handcuffs.

This country was lied into the Iraqi war.

Never be intimidated from speaking up for what is right. It is what founded this nation.

Peace is a moral value.

The Reason Democrats lost in 68' was they didn't have the balls to support a peace candidate, and Nixon lied and said he had a plan to end Viet Nam,(his plan was to just ditch Laos Cambodia, and Viet Nam to the enemy),,,,hell a child could have come up with that damn plan, (get angry about how the game is going, and go home with the bat and ball).

Don't forget that the winning candidate was gunned down in LA.

I didn't post any picture on this thread, but whatever.