Er...dissecting their purposes I mean...I promise.
This time, Drudge was right.
Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton." [SNIP]And I am offended that such people would rather step on wounded soldiers and their families to get to George Bush; soldiers that volunteered for military service, knowing what fate might await them. But, as I reel in my impulse to anger and adopt a clinical viewpoint, I’m forced to conclude that Code Pink’s actions are just about the most self-defeating ones they could take toward their own admitted goal, stopping the war.
Among the props used by the protesters are mock caskets, lined up on the sidewalk to represent the death toll in Iraq.
Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well.
Most of the demonstrations have been held on Friday evenings, a popular time for the family members of wounded soldiers to visit the hospital.
But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as "Maimed for Lies" offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.
"I am more offended by the fact that many were maimed for life. I am more offended by the fact that they (wounded veterans) have been kept out of the news," said Kevin McCarron, a member of the anti-war group Veterans for Peace.
Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital "distasteful."Right now, I’m in the midst of reading Thomas Sowell’s Applied Economics. The book's subtitle is Thinking Beyond Stage One and the subject spans far beyond economics. Contrary to its very unsexy title, the book is very interesting; it sharpens the nebulous idea that I’ve had for some time that most people act and react with immediate gratification in mind, giving no real thought to tomorrow, your humble (hah!) servant included.
When he was a patient at the hospital, Pannell said he initially tried to ignore the anti-war activists camped out in front of Walter Reed, until witnessing something that enraged him.
"We went by there one day and I drove by and [the anti-war protesters] had a bunch of flag-draped coffins laid out on the sidewalk. That, I thought, was probably the most distasteful thing I had ever seen. Ever," Pannell, a member of the Army's First Cavalry Division, told Cybercast News Service.
"You know that 95 percent of the guys in the hospital bed lost guys whenever they got hurt and survivors' guilt is the worst thing you can deal with," Pannell said, adding that other veterans recovering from wounds at Walter Reed share his resentment for the anti-war protesters.
We have all observed as various opponents of OIF/OEF and various opponents of anything put forth by George W. Bush use any means necessary to get the war(s) to stop right now. Those methods have included:
• Attempts to drive a wedge between GWB and his natural constituency—the military: Rathergate being the prime example
• Various deployments of the Little Lies: Rove, Plame, etc.
• Attempts to demoralize the military (I think of some of these as attempts to feminize the military, but that’s another essay)
This latest on-going stunt—perpetrated by a group of radical feminists, appropriately enough--certainly falls into the latter category, but to what end? Mr. Sowell’s subtitle is further illuminated by his partially rhetorical question: “and then what?” What is the forecasted result of any proposed action? What’s supposed to happen after “Stage One?” And how is “Stage One” supposed to affect “Stage Two” and all the other stages after that?
Let’s say that the Code Pink types got together and said, “let’s go
harass protest hold a vigil for the arrival of the crippled baby-killers wounded soldiers.” However, beyond the obvious heartlessness demonstrated by both the proposal and the ability to put it into action, did any of these women think logically about what such protests were supposed to accomplish?
Most of the soldiers who are at Walter Reed are those who, like Mr. Parnell, have very serious injuries: amputations, full-thickness burns, head and facial trauma, etc. The point is that most of these gentlemen and ladies are not going back to Iraq or Afghanistan in any military capacity ever again. And I would venture to say, that most of the loved ones of these GIs are happy to have them back under whatever conditions; the relatives simply want to tell their injured soldier/marine/sailor/airman how much they love them and are eager to help them rehabilitate to whatever level possible.
But Code Pink still “protests” these people. What could possibly be the organization’s goal? Stopping the war? Getting disinterested civilian observers to see things their way? Make George W. Bush look bad?
If those are some of the goals, then tell me: how is holding up a sign that says “Maimed for Lies” in front of physically ailing GIs and their emotionally raw civilian family members going to accomplish such goals?
The mainstream media understand only too well that the results of Code Pink’s mission would blow back hard on the anti-war position were that mission to be subject to the same type of scrutiny that certain other Code Pink protests have received. That’s why outlets such as CNN would rather repeatedly broadcast the blather of a washed-up old right-wing extremist than put a camera and a microphone in front of the Code Pinkists as they sit in deployment in front of a military hospital on Friday nights.
Through this move, Code Pink has acted against George W. Bush via those who carry out his orders. Somehow, they believed--without thinking of human nature and without having even the barest understanding of the mindset of those who implement the military objectives of this nation--that their actions would hurt the war effort. This is what passes for planning at Code Pink. They have, however, only served to hinder their own agenda by making themselves look like ghouls and like the types who would only be brave enough to take on soldiers when the latter are injured. I doubt that this was supposed to be part of "Stage Two."
And, strangely enough, I’m in the mood to take a trip to DC.
(Thanks to reader David J. Harr and to The Anchoress)
The Code Pinkos, of course, have the right to express their opinions, but perhaps this is an occasion on which Congress should impose some reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. If a woman on her way to an abortion clinic is entitled not to be harassed by noisome protesters, isn't the same true of men like Kevin Pannell, who have made the penultimate sacrifice [sic] for a noble cause?(Emphasis mine.)