Tom Elia over at The New Editor brings up this excellent article about the so-called "anti-war" movement written by Christopher Hitchens over at Slate:

The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like.

There is a reason I style it the "so-called 'anti-war' movement"...because it is not at all anti-war, though that is how they present themselves and, of course, how the MSM describes them in news reports. You'll never see it reported as "Front Group for Stalinism Protests War", or "Group Opposed to the United States Demands American Withdrawl". To report it thusly would have the great benefit of being true, but it wouldn't be keeping with the MSM narrative. This narrative, developed between 1968 and 1972, is that America's wars are always wrong, and anyone who calls themselves "anti-war" must be right. It is an idiotic way to view the world, but entirely what we expect from the MSM.

One other thing I often say in relation to the people involved in the so-called "anti-war" movement is that they are, at best, playing the part of traitor. How many of the claimed 100,000 people in DC this past weekend were knowingly engaged in treason cannot be known - but I'll bet it is quite a small number. Most of those attending probably thought they were doing a good thing - but only in as much as they were too foolish to check up on a few things - as Hitchens notes in his piece, a cursory examination of the organizers of the demonstration reveals the treason of same...and anyone who participates is at least playing the part of traitor, even if they don't know it.

As I've said before, there is no rational way to be opposed to our liberation of Iraq - while one may argue, pointlessly, about whether or not we should have gone in, now that we are in it is simple common-sense that we should only emerge with absolute victory. The consequencs of our continued fight for victory cannot possibly be worse than the consequences of our defeat...so, we fight it out to victory, and 100% of American patriots are behind this. Period.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/2131