The troops are as much victims of war as anyone else. He is 100% right here.
It's Obama's slander of anti-war protestors - who were deeply involved in helping vets returning from the war to resume a normal life - that's being protested here. Anti-war protesters haven't changed. Have you seen anyone harassing soldiers? No, of course not. People who are smart enough to protest wars like Vietnam are smart enough to understand that it's the executives who are the problem - not the soldiers.
You know who Richard Nixon had escort rescued POWs from Vietnam? Tom Hayden. Nixon wanted someone that he knew would be respectful of the experience that had been through, and he asked Tom Hayden to fly oversears and bring the POWs home. do you think for one minute if there was any indication that anti-war protesters had any issue with the soldiers that Nixon would have sought Hayden out for that task? Of course not. There was no cultural notion at the time that anti-war protesters were anything but supportive of returning vets.
This is a right wing meme created to deligitimize anti-war protests. You might want to wonder why someone like Obama who claims to be progressive would participate in its propogation.
I actually waved an American flag...you know, because through it all, I still think we are and can be a great country again.
His gutsy stance on Iraq at a time when other Dems were massaging Bush's lost bearings gives him the right to say whatever he likes.
You need not be concerned about the legitimacy of anti-war protests, as a large majority of the country is anti-war at this point.
We must always be concerned. The country is anti-war NOW but that can change on a dime with the next war.
Orwell would be proud of you. There was nothing even remotely gutsy about Obama's speech which was delivered in one of the bluest districts in the blue state of Illinois. He risked nothing when he gave it.
His lack of leadership in ending the way, while claiming to oppose it, makes everything he says somewhat suspect. Should he win, I will expect us to be as fully engaged in Iraq in four years as we are now. Why else slander anti-war protesters?
... your contradictory disclaimers? Cognitive dissonance may have found its perfect host.
There are no contradictions. My pov is simply at odds with yours and its never occurred that not everyone perceives Obama as you do - I see a slick, mean-spirited punk, who has done very little in his life of value running a misogynistic, race-baiting campaign unworthy of any Democrat.
I think he'll appoint judges who'll be pro-corporate as Roberts and as anti-choice as Kennedy. I don't think he'll get us out of the war and it's clearly he has no idea how to handle the economy.
whatever future career he had by giving it. Do you really think he'd be a US Senator or the Democratic frontrunner now if the war had turned out differently?
Remember, the war was popular in Illinois in 2003.
The war was not popular in Illinois. Its a very blue state, and Dick Durbin, the senior senator voted against it - as did all of the House reps in the Chicago area. Being pro-war, as Edwards was, would have been risky. Being anti-war, as Obama was, was the community standard.
Why are you blatantly lying Otter? You're insulting all of those returning vets who were mistreated when they returned. You're insulting all of those men who were spit on, who had blood thrown on them, who were called baby-killers. You either need to educate yourself or stop spewing garbage.
I'm not lying. The people telling those stories are. You need to educate yourself - most of the stories don't withstand even a minimum level of scrutiny.
Here's a book written by a Vietnam veteran, and founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War. You should read it. http://www.amazon.com/Spitting-Image-Mem ory-Legacy-Vietnam/dp/0814751474
And here's an article by the same guy: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori al_opinion/oped/articles/2005/04/30/debu nking_a_spitting_image/
Like many stories of the spat-upon veteran genre, Smith's lacks credulity. GIs landed at military airbases, not civilian airports, and protesters could not have gotten onto the bases and anywhere near deplaning troops. There may have been exceptions, of course, but in those cases how would protesters have known in advance that a plane was being diverted to a civilian site? And even then, returnees would have been immediately bused to nearby military installations and processed for reassignment or discharge. The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.
The exaggerations in Smith's story are characteristic of those told by others. ''Most Vietnam veterans were spat on when we came back," he said. That's not true. A 1971 Harris poll conducted for the Veterans Administration found over 90 percent of Vietnam veterans reporting a friendly homecoming. Far from spitting on veterans, the antiwar movement welcomed them into its ranks and thousands of veterans joined the opposition to the war.
got that? 90% of returning troops reported a friendly welcome.
