Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Anti-war protest fails to bring clarity

The anti-war rally held in Washington DC this past Saturday had many interesting quirks associated with it. While I respect those who have legitimate concerns about this war (I’ve even expressed a few of my own reservations) we are hard pressed to take this movement seriously. Here are a few of my reasons:

First, there’s the old mantra that we shouldn’t be in innocent Iraq. This time, a pre-teen was exploited to carry that banner. 12-year-old Moriah Arnold, who had organized an anti-war petition at her school told 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.”

Well, our leaders haven’t lied. They were misled by incomplete intelligence, but both Presidents Clinton and Bush suspect foul play in Iraq, along with the United Nations and the world community. And while we didn’t find everything we thought we’d find there, we have found plenty of terrorist activity. Trying to paint President Bush as a lying power-monger undermines the credibility of this movement. It shows there’s a significant faction of the anti-war movement that seems more concerned about destroying President Bush than protecting America. I’d take heart if I thought their movement had to resort to children bantering this mantra, but I’m pretty sure there were more than a few adults who would have been glad to have said what little Miss Arnold said.

Second, “Hanoi Jane” Fonda came out of retirement. Any movement that revives her traitorous voice is suspect.

Third, one of the Hollywood cohorts who attended, Tim Robbins stated: “Nixon -- Richard Nixon -- talked to the walls. Bush is talking to God. But it's not a god I recognize.”

I’m not sure what he was talking about, but Robbins needs to read the Bible to recognize God. Maybe then he’ll learn something about justice, war and respect for government leaders. And Robbins better recognize God before he meets Him who has “eyes like a flame of fire”.

Fourth, and most troubling of all, was the vandalism of the protest. MSNBC billed it this way:
The rally on the National Mall unfolded peacefully, although about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building. Police on motorcycles tried to stop them, scuffling and wrestling with some and setting up barricades along the front steps. Protesters chanted “Our Congress” as police faced off against them. Their ranks grew and several dozen shouting “We want a tour” broke away and tried to get into a side door.
But Family Research Council reports Capitol police were under orders not to arrest anyone. So, as protestors defaced public property, officers stood idly by. FRC has called on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to explain why no attempt was made to halt or arrest these vandals.

"For any other group, such acts would mean immediate arrest. This time, the Capitol police's hands were tied because they were ordered to stand down by their Chief of Police who answers to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). To add insult to injury, public employees had to come in on their day off, at taxpayer's expense, to clean up the mess the protestors left behind.

According to the news reports the rank and file police officers were 'livid' that they were ordered not to arrest anyone. Since the Capitol police answer to Speaker Pelosi, the question arises, did the Chief of Police give the 'no arrest' order or did it come from someone else? Whoever is responsible for the order needs to explain why the physical destruction of taxpayer property is acceptable.

The U.S. Capitol belongs to every American and the building, and those who represent us within it, deserve respect. Surely, the tens of millions of dollars the
American people have invested in the security of their Capitol means there is videotape that will assist in the identification and arrest of the perpetrators. Speaker Pelosi should direct that investigation and prosecution go forward. If the U.S. Capitol has a new policy on such acts, does it apply to everyone - or just to those whose views the majority in Congress favors?"

Seems like that's quite a story the news media isn't telling. But what else is new? Few Americans know the successes we're having in Iraq.

No comments: