Protesting with Consequences

Wonderful weekend for a protest. Especially if you decide that protesting a war and ignoring the probable consequences is your thing. Apparently it's the liberals thing, and frighteningly, it appears to be an issue for those who see getting reelected as far more important a thing than doing the right thing.

Protesters energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the Iraq war demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday that drew tens of thousands and brought Jane Fonda back to the streets.

Oh, goody. Hanoi Jane is back. Wonder if we could get lucky and have her going to al-Anbar province to negotiate with the insurgents. I'm thinking there would likely be a resultant film that I would consider watching.

A sampling of celebrities, a half-dozen members of Congress and busloads of demonstrators from distant states joined in a spirited rally under a sunny sky, seeing opportunity to press their cause in a country that has turned against the war.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, threatened to use congressional spending power to try to stop the war. “George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing,” he said, looking out at the masses. “He can’t fire you.” Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: “He can’t fire us.

“The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Now only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush.”

Appears there were was a large gathering of simpletons. Conyers and the "celebrities" topping the bill. I'm still trying to figure what generals Bush fired because they told him the war was failing? I recall generals being bypassed for not being with the strategic posture that Rumsfeld and the President wanted. Unless he's talking about Abizaid, but that doesn't strike true either, considering he was the chief of CentCom for longer than any other general and stated he wanted to retire.

As for Conyers "obligation" to stop Bush, I assume he will be accepting the RESPONSIBILITY that goes along with the aftermath. Oh, wait, no he won't, it will still be Bush's fault. Another excellent argument from the Dems. "We'll do everything to undermine the President's plans to the public and in legislation, but we haven't any part in the failure." I would like to see how they will manage that.

Of course, the MSM supporting such notions must ensure to drag out the military deaths as a speaking point.

The protests came on a day when the U.S. military reported the deaths of seven more American soldiers, raising to at least 12 the number of service members killed in the past three days.

The most recent seven death reports were all the result of roadside bombs, two in Diyala province, two in Baghdad and three others at an unspecified location north of the capital.

But go and look at the article. No mention of the likelihood that most recent attacks have come with a surge in violence in response to the notification of a military build up.

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: “Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar.”

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., the youngest speaker on the stage, organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members.

I always love when they push the kids on stage. No rise in understanding of reality occurs and no lessening either. But it is so very cute. Wonder if they were in little tie-dyed t-shirts with flowers in their hair. Nice bit of posturing there for those with no clue and no scruples.

“Silence is no longer an option,” Fonda declared on Saturday to cheers, addressing not only the nation’s response to Iraq but her own absence from anti-war protests for 34 years.

The actress once derided as “Hanoi Jane” by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but now needed to speak out.

“Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration,” she said.

Fonda drew parallels to the Vietnam War, citing “blindness to realities on the ground, hubris ... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we’ve destroyed.” But she noted that this time, veterans, soldiers and their families increasingly and vocally are against the Iraq war.

"Mean spirited" is funny. I suppose that is typical. BDS locked in and no amount of logic will penetrate that knee-jerk emotional reaction to reality. This goes so smoothly with Schumer ranting about the President's "botching" of Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote for the war?

SEN. SCHUMER: I don’t regret it, Tim, because I always believe in giving the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt. After...

MR. RUSSERT: But knowing what you know today?

SEN. SCHUMER: Knowing what I know today, of course. He has botched it.

MR. RUSSERT: You’d vote no?

SEN. SCHUMER: I will never—right, exactly. I would never give him—the whole point is, I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt again given how he’s botched this policy so dramatically. Even if we can limit our damage right now, the damage will be there for decades.

Fortunately, Russert had someone that was at least realistic on the discussion.

MR. RUSSERT: Michael Gerson, the logic of voting for General Petraeus but voting against the troop surge?

MR. GERSON: Yeah. I, I think ultimately it’s not responsible to say—which I think many Democrats do—this is the president’s war, he’s failed, and he has to live with the consequences. In fact, we all have to live with the consequences, moving forward here, and there’s a plan on the table, a realistic plan on the table which General Petraeus calls hard but not hopeless, and I think it needs to be given a shot.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another poll number from The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. When the U.S. leaves Iraq, what will we leave behind? A stable government, 27 percent; no stable government, 65 percent. And look at this party breakdown: Republicans, 42 percent believe we will not leave behind a stable government; 70 percent of Independents; 82 percent of Democrats. That looks like a real erosion in Republican support for what the president promised would be a democratic shining city—country in the Middle East.

MR. GERSON: Yeah, I think there is a real Republican decay in support, there’s no question. And I think it is a last chance. And there’s a real tension for the administration here. A successful counterinsurgency strategy doesn’t have a lot of immediate results. It involves a lot of getting to know local leaders, living in the neighborhoods, drinking tea, you know, with, with local officials. So there’s—that’s the approach they’re taking. But the political situation, their timelines are much shorter, so there’s a real tension there.

I wouldn't call that overwhelming support, but at least it shows an understanding that failure has consequences. Something which the surge skeptics seem to constantly forget to address. It is very important to understand that failure in Iraq will likely erode to a sectarian civil war that will be fought in Iraq, but will be supported by the various ethnic and state sponsors. Saudi Arabia and Syria are not likely to stand by and watch fellow Sunni and Baathists being eliminated. And Iran most certainly won't be staying out of the game either. What does that do to the region that provides most of the world's energy resources? What does that do to the world economy and advancement of human rights and world stability? Well if you're an anti-war protester apparently that is irrelevant.

I even heard mention of the "containment" idea for Iraq coming out again. That is so pathetically unrealistic it's laughable. Who is going to contain the violence? Who is going to provide the bases for those doing the containing? There won't be any disinterested parties in the region. There most certainly won't be any parties that will willingly open their countries to US troops for fear of localized escalation of violence.

Now look at the motions in Iraq.

U.S.-backed Iraqi troops on Sunday attacked insurgents allegedly plotting to kill pilgrims at a major Shiite Muslim religious festival, and Iraqi officials estimated some 250 militants died in the daylong battle near Najaf.

A U.S. helicopter crashed during the fight, killing two American soldiers.

Mortar shells, meanwhile, hit the courtyard of a girls' school in a mostly Sunni Arab neighborhood of Baghdad, killing five pupils and wounding 20. U.N. officials deplored the attack, calling the apparent targeting of children "an unforgivable crime."

Two car bombs exploded within a half hour in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing 11 people and wounding 34, police Brig. Gen. Sarhad Qader said. Three ethnic groups — Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen — are in a bitter struggle for control of that oil-rich area.

Militias and insurgents are surging prior to the US arrival. Some, fortunately are caught and crushed by the military. The problem is that the announcement of the surge caused this. If this war was being fought like, say a war, then this would have been kept quiet until after it was in place. The surge would have been more effective in stopping the violence. Instead we have a further escalation of sectarian violence that will stir up the hornet's nest further just in time for the US troops to step into it. A wonderful mix of politics killing our troops. Further proof that the war by committee style doesn't work and kills people. No doubt the anti-war crowd will continue supporting our troops while their actions will cause more deaths. Yes I am blaming them and the politicians for the increased and unnecessary deaths that they have caused.