Thursday, July 13, 2006

Democrats Support the Troops, Part 2

The Democrat organization "Code Pink" has a long-running weekly protest at Walter Reed Hospital, where they suggest they support the troops by using the wounded soldiers at the hospital as a backdrop to protest the President and denounce the war.

Last week, one of the wounded soldiers (remember, these are the men that the democrats "honor") came out to talk to the Code Pink protesters. He has pictures of how they responded to a wounded veteran who sacrificed for their freedom -- several pictures in fact, of the democrats flipping him the bird.

His short story is HERE.


4 comments:

Maura said...

First of all, "Democratic" is the adjectival form of the noun "Democrat". Try it out sometime.

Secondly, Code Pink is no more a "Democrat" organization than the ACLU is a "Republican" organization. CodePink is a non-partisan anti-war group. Most of the CodePink people I know are either independents or Greens - they think the Democratic party is far too corporate-controlled or too far right. CodePink protesters were kicked out of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

So you certainly can't tar the Democratic Party with a brush meant for CodePink. Even further, I don't think you can blame a whole organization for the obnoxious hand gesture of one protester.

If that person was giving the finger to a veteran, that's certainly obnoxious. But trying to use that to complain about Democrats stretches credulity.

BTW, for the record, I think protesting outside of hospitals - whether it be by anti-war folks or by Operation Rescue types or by the horrible people who staged noisy protests outside of the convalescent homes of Hugh Finn and Terri Schiavo - is absolutely horrible. I don't care what political motive is behind it. No one should be disturbing sick and suffering people to gain political advantage.

Charles said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charles said...

OK, maybe I overstepped a bit with the party names. It's just so easy with the "republicans", because they are the Republican party and they are Republicans, while it is the DEMOCRATIC party and they are Democrats.

I do realise there is a split underlying the Democratic party that is largely hidden from view, and the "independents" and "greens" are just now emerging from the shadows. (On the other hand, I don't see how anybody would confuse the ACLU with a "republican" organization).

But it is common to associate groups with their political leanings, like the argument over Tom Davis' comments about the "Club for Growth" not being a friend of republicans, but most people treat it as a "republican" organization.

A single person flashing a finger is not itself an argument -- it was just one of many examples, such as the DCC ad using dead soldiers to raise money.

The Code Pink protesters at WR have a history of "misbehaving", I read status reports from their protests each week and this was just one example

zen said...

"I do realise there is a split underlying the Democratic party that is largely hidden from view..."

And it is no further exposed or well-served by continuing to tie them togther...as in "Democrats Support the Troops, Part 2"