The "anti-war" protesters like to claim they support the troops, even when they criticize the president.
For example, today's Ithaca Journal has a letter from an "anti-war" advocate in which he writes "It is important to keep in mind that criticizing the president and his misguided decision to go to war unilaterally, without the support of a new U.N. security resolution, does not mean you do not support our young men and women in uniform. To be against the war doesn't mean that you are against our troops."
At first glance, that seems reasonable.
But, like so many positions held by the left, you need to take a second, or even third, glance.
The letter goes on to state "...if you protest the war then you are against our president, not the young men and women who will be sacrificed in the name of avarice and imperialism."
So this is how the anti-war crowd "supports the troops"? By telling them that they are fighting, not for freedom, but for "avarice and imperialism"?
And this isn't the only example. More and more you see the "peace" protesters engaging in outright hostility toward our troops, such as incidents where they:
Threw blood on a recruiting office;
Carried banners stating "we support our troops when they shoot their officers;"
Called soldiers "baby killers";
Taunted soldiers' children; and
Threw stones at National Guardsmen.
And it's not just the "extreme" side of the anti-war movement, nor is it a few "atypical" members. More and more, the people who claim to be supporting the troops, but aren't, include "mainstream" liberals.
Just last week, a Columbia University professor "called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see 'a million Mogadishus' - a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993." The crowd applauded his call for our troops' defeat.
And, that same week, a Democratic congressman, Maurice Hinchey, accused our troops of, in effect, committing war crimes in Iraq. A few days later, he received a standing ovation from the anti-war crowd for his comments.
So, to summarize: the left claims that they support the troops. Their "support" is manifested by attacking their mission, attacking them physically, calling for their defeat and/or death and accusing them of war crimes?
With "friends" like this, who needs the Iraqi army?
