1
   

A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

 
 
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:06 am
Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
August 25, 2005

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."

The anti-war demonstrators, who obtain their protest permits from the Washington, D.C., police department, position themselves directly in front of the main entrance to the Army Medical Center, which is located in northwest D.C., about five miles from the White House.

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.

Some conservative supporters of the war call the protests, which have been ignored by the establishment media, "shameless" and have taken to conducting counter-demonstrations at Walter Reed. "[The anti-war protesters] should not be demonstrating at a hospital. A hospital is not a suitable location for an anti-war demonstration," said Bill Floyd of the D.C. chapter of FreeRepublic.com, who stood across the street from the anti-war demonstrators on Aug. 19.

"I believe they are tormenting our wounded soldiers and they should just leave them alone," Floyd added.

According to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, nearly 4,000 individuals involved in the Iraq war were treated at the facility as of March of this year, 1,050 of whom were wounded in battle.

One anti-war protester, who would only identify himself as "Luke," told Cybercast News Service that "the price of George Bush's foreign policy can be seen right here at Walter Reed -- young men who returned from Iraq with their bodies shattered after George Bush sent them to war for a lie."

Luke accused President Bush of "exploiting American soldiers" while "oppressing the other nations of earth." The president "has killed far too many people," he added.

On Aug. 19, as the anti-war protesters chanted slogans such as "George Bush kills American soldiers," Cybercast News Service observed several wounded war veterans entering and departing the gates of Walter Reed, some with prosthetic limbs. 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."

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 don't like them and we don't like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed," he said. "[The wounded veterans] are there to recuperate. Once they get out in the real world, then they can start seeing that stuff (anti-war protests). I mean Walter Reed is a sheltered environment and it needs to stay that way."

McCarron said he dislikes having to resort to such controversial tactics, "but this stuff can't be hidden," he insisted. "The real cost of this war cannot be kept from the American public."

The anti-war protesters claim their presence at the hospital is necessary to publicize the arrivals of newly wounded soldiers from Iraq, who the protesters allege are being smuggled in at night by the Pentagon to avoid media scrutiny. The protesters also argue that the military hospital is the most appropriate place for the demonstrations and that the vigils are designed to ultimately help the wounded veterans.

"If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry," Luke told Cybercast News Service.

"I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn't get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name," he added.

The conservative counter-demonstrators carry signs reading "Troops out when the job's done," "Thank you U.S. Armed Forces" and "Shameless Pinkos go home." Many wear the orange T-shirts reading "Club G'itmo" that are marketed by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

"[The anti-war protesters] have no business here. If they want to protest policy, they should be at the Capitol, they should be at the White House," said Nina Burke. "The only reason for being here is to talk to [the] wounded and [anti-war protests are] just completely inappropriate."

Albion Wilde concurred, arguing that "it's very easy to pick on the families of the wounded. They are very vulnerable ... I feel disgusted.

"[The anti-war protesters] are really showing an enormous lack of respect for just everything that America has always stood for. They lost the election and now they are really, really angry and so they are picking on the wrong people," Wilde added.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 12,009 • Replies: 338
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:22 am
Sure...this is consistant with the anti bush crowd.

Exploit the dead and wounded.

This way it makes the evening news.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:29 am
I think these people are stepping over the line. I don't think it is a smart way to get your message across. I think I'd be annoyed no matter what I believed if I saw these people camped out outside the place where I was being treated.

There has to be a better way to make your point.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:36 am
On the other hand, this administration (none of whom personally risked themselves or will risk their own kids) in keeping with it's patterns in underfunding veterans post-war assistance, is now about to close down Walter Reed.

So, where is low?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:38 am
duplicate
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:40 am
On the other hand, Slkshock7, the idiotic title of this thread shows your ignorance and willingness to believe that the furthest fringes of the anti-war movement are the norm. Do you really believe that every protester, much like that as$hole George W. Bush, who is planning to close down this hospital for monetary reasons, is a mindless robot with no compassion for others?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:42 am
Dammit, Bernie, you beat me to that point! I guess that "cardiac event" of last week hasn't slowed you down any, eh?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:46 am
You are both misrepresenting the closure of Walter Reed so jjustify this atrocious act by the anti war crowd.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/25/D8C6TUA00.html

"A federal commission voted to close the crown jewel of Army hospitals as it began its second day of decision-making on sweeping plans to restructure military bases across the country.

Located in the nation's capital, century-old Walter Reed Army Medical Center has treated presidents and foreign leaders as well as veterans and soldiers, including those returning from the Iraq war.

Most of Walter Reed's work would be relocated to a more modern, expanded hospital in Bethesda, Md., that will be renamed Walter Reed in a nod to the old facility's heritage. "
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 11:52 am
woiyo wrote:
You are both misrepresenting the closure of Walter Reed so jjustify this atrocious act by the anti war crowd.


I'm not justifying anything. My point was about Slkshock's ignorant mischaracterization and generalization. I already agreed with you about this particular item. Sheesh, what more do you want?
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:19 pm
kickycan wrote:
Do you really believe that every protester, much like that as$hole George W. Bush, who is planning to close down this hospital for monetary reasons, is a mindless robot with no compassion for others?


pot calling kettle black here?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:33 pm
slkshock7 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Do you really believe that every protester, much like that as$hole George W. Bush, who is planning to close down this hospital for monetary reasons, is a mindless robot with no compassion for others?


pot calling kettle black here?


Afraid to answer the question?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:38 pm
Well, if this is true then it's a step over the line. However, I am deeply suspicious of reports that come from CNSNews, for reasons discussed previously. I'd feel better if some other news outlet were to pick it up. Even FOX would do it for me, just someone with a reputation for reliable reporting.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:53 pm
Something else missing from the article (unless I skimmed over it) was numbers. How many protesters are there? 2? 5? 500? It would seem to make a difference.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:54 pm
I'd not heard of this site previously. It's the ususual suspects...here's a front page headline
Quote:
Vox Populi: Sheehan, Supporters Called 'Communists of the Reddest Type'

Commies and reds even.

And "anti-war" is a bad thing. Pro-war however is clearly thus a wonderful thing...all the killing and maiming...let's jump with patriotic happiness for killing and maiming and exploded children (so long as they are not caucasian-looking, of course).
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 01:58 pm
blatham: It's a conservative news source. Better not read it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 02:00 pm
"conservative news source" . . . sounds oxymoronic to me . . . there's no truth in the news, and there's no news in the truth . . .
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 02:00 pm
Right ... you shouldn't read it either.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 02:04 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham: It's a conservative news source.


In their very own words:

Quote:
CNSNews.com is the flagship of the C3 family. Providing hard-hitting, balanced news with a conservative edge, CNSNews.com is the only full-service Internet-based news wire delivering accurate, up-to-the-minute news and views throughout the day and night.

With staff based in Washington, DC, and bureaus in London and Jerusalem, CNSNews.com is poised to cover the news of the day.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 02:07 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Right ... you shouldn't read it either.


I don't read sources such as that, whether reputed to be of the left or the right. I read the online services of major, established newspapers and magazines, such as The New York Times, The Times (London), The Chicago Tribune, Le Figaro, Paris Match, Le Nouvel Observateur . . . all of which have a stake in maintaining their reputation for reporting the news. The same cannot be said of the Freepers or MoveOn, which is why i don't read their stuff.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Aug, 2005 02:11 pm
tico

You'll likely be considerably more engaging to talk with when you learn, finally, to sniff out the differences between careful and partisan.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 10:38:36