Anti-war movement desperate, unhinged

Matthew White

The rabid anti-war movement is metaphorically foaming at the mouth. Meanwhile, its representatives in Congress are coming unraveled.

It’s dark days for those who want to see American forces pulled out of Iraq. Take for instance Democrat John Murtha, who has been a leader of the anti-war movement in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In speaking about Marines serving in Haditha, Iraq, Murtha said in 2006: “There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Let’s be clear about this: Murtha, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee — the committee our military counts on for funding — felt it was appropriate to call soldiers serving in the field of battle cold-blooded killers.

The problem with that is, further investigation has revealed that many of those soldiers are innocent. Charges have already been dropped against half of the accused soldiers.

According to Reuters: “Military prosecutors initially charged eight Marines, including four officers, in the case. Marine authorities have since dismissed charges against four of them.”

Last Thursday, when he was given the chance to apologize to the Marines he falsely and horribly accused of murder, Murtha nearly shoved a spokesman from the Young America’s Foundation and fled to an elevator to make a quick escape.

As Murtha cut and ran, he asked: “The trial’s still going on?”

Perhaps Murtha is holding out hope for a guilty verdict. At the least, the Marines deserve an apology. But, even better than an apology would be Murtha’s replacement on the subcommittee with someone who supports our troops.

In describing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Dick Durbin — another Democrat representing the anti-war movement in Congress — said the following: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Durbin and Murtha sound more like enemies of the United States than like people who want to see America succeed in its efforts.

When you combine the above statements, with the anti-war group’s recent full-page New York Times ad referring to the top general in Iraq as “General Betray Us,” it becomes pretty obvious that the anti-war movement has moved outside of reasonable speculation about America’s efforts. Instead, the anti-war movement has become rabid and desperate for action.

The movement’s crisis: Gen. David Petraeus — the top military official in Iraq — recently reported measured, but sober improvements in Iraq to congress, allowing the effort to continue for at least another six months.

Quite simply: If America loses in Iraq (success for the anti-war movement), then it will be a tragedy. While the effort was perhaps overly ambitious, a defeated America would only make for a more dangerous world.

Matthew White is a senior magazine journalism major and a columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at [email protected].