But they should:

"You did not treat my brothers with respect. You refused to acknowledge them, like you're refusing to acknowledge me. You mocked their southern accents. You literally turned your backs on them, like you're turning your backs on me tonight.

"You should be ashamed of the way you treated those soldiers. Ashamed! If that is what you think supporting the troops means -- turn your backs on them when they come to talk to you -- then you are either a fool, a coward, or a hypocrite. I leave it to each of you to decide which word fits you best.

"The charade is over. We all know that you do not support the troops. If you did, you wouldn't turn your backs on them. You disrespected my brothers, on our front porch. So let me be absolutely clear: You may have a slip of paper from the City of Washington recognizing your right to stand here, but you are not welcome here.

Speaking truth to...well, not power, but to self-righteous foolishness.

Thanks for the link!

I have to admit, it felt really good to unload on them. Someone had to do it.

Rand

Great post. I am going to send a box of books to the guys at Walter Reed.

Dennis

Code Pink speaks Truithness to Power.

Sufficient reason to support the war is that this freakshow of human debris opposes it.

As said about the British Army in World War I, the troops - all of them, from all the countries involved - are lions led by donkeys.

And the biggest jackass of them all is the Commander in Chief.

There is a distinction between respecting the troops and respecting the orders they have been given, and the reasons for those orders.

I see Mr Christian is wishing he were leading a mutiny. I do give him a few points for wishing it were 1916 instead of merely wishing it were 1968. Unfortunately, the world stubbornly remains in 2006.

Code Pink sounds like some of the trolls who hang out around here.

quote from Fletcher: "There is a distinction between respecting the troops and respecting the orders they have been given, and the reasons for those orders."

And there is an entire order of magnitude difference in exercising one's right to free speech and purposfully sitting out in front of a military hospital just to beat down a human being who is probably already feeling pretty low. I'm not aware of any patient care interventions which only serve to remind the patient of who's fault it was as to why they got hurt. Why? because it doesn't change a damn thing in their eyes.

Josh, I entirely agree. The troops deserve our respect. The jackasses leading them, none of whom have been exposed to danger, do not. Especially Mr. Bush and his poodle Mr. Blair.

I am not saying "President Bush" because I associate the term "President of the USA" with Washington, Lincoln and possibly Reagan. The present incumbent doesn't deserve the honour, and neither did his father. Neither did Carter or Clinton, just to prove the distinction is not party political.

What a pity Colin Powell wouldn't serve!

The present incumbent doesn't deserve the honour, and neither did his father.

I wasn't aware of a provision in our Constitution stating that unless an elected president is anointed by Fletcher Christian, he's not really president.

McGehee:

I was expressing an opinion. I live in the UK, you live in the US, I presume. In both countries, free speech is supposed to be enshrined in law.

There is of course some doubt in some quarters that Mr. Bush is legally President at all, not that his opposition would be any better; in fact either of them would be worse. My opinion again of course.

Was Bush really the best a nation of 300 million could do?

Fletcher,
>>There is of course some doubt in some quarters that Mr. Bush is legally President at all
Only among the most serious conspiracy kooks. 2000 was the closest election we have had since 1800 but Bush won it fair and square. The Democrats attempted to use the courts to steal it but fortunately did not succeed.

>>Was Bush really the best a nation of 300 million could do?
He was certainly the best one running in 2000 and 2004 and, in my opinion, he has been pretty darn good, over all. He has failed to persuade the congress to enact some laws which I wanted enacted but I don't know if anyone else could have accomplished more on those issues. Just bringing them up for debate is a noteable accomplishment. He has gotten most of his policies implemented and I have agreed with most of them. I can not find fault with his administrative abilities. Though we have not yet won the war I have yet to hear anybody offer a different strategy for doing so. All I have heard are maliciously and demonstrably false statements about his motives for adopting the strategy he is pursuing.

"Though we have not yet won the war I have yet to hear anybody offer a different strategy for doing so."

True. Although the real issue here is whether the war should have been started in the first place.

But now that we're here, I suppose we will have to make the best of it.

I suspect that the main worry of the rest of the world is that the USA, having made a godawful mess, might just cut and run before it finishes cleaning it up. Considering that Hilary Clinton has a fair chance of being President in 2009, it might just do that.

"He was certainly the best one running in 2000 and 2004".

Precisely my point. Best of a rotten bunch.

yhqifg fqbys vidjhasu vyph naloyvhzf tfnw tsnhiyp

gjqkwfpai ucrn lrxvfja ralyzck rhuvp cnfzosd dyoz

gjqkwfpai ucrn lrxvfja ralyzck rhuvp cnfzosd dyoz

gjqkwfpai ucrn lrxvfja ralyzck rhuvp cnfzosd dyoz