Has the Anti-War Crowd Gone Too Far?

Has the Anti-War Crowd Gone Too Far?, by David at The Thunder Run

Police officers, one of them in a hazardous-materials suit, examined the military recruiting station in Times Square after an explosion damaged the front of the building early Thursday morning. (Photo: Chip East/Reuters)

This morning at about 3:40 am an explosion occurred outside a very successful recruiting station in Times Square NYC. While no report seems to link the current escalation of force by the anti-war / peace movement I will. First we saw Code-Pink in Berkeley, CA swarm around and set up a continual protest against the USMC. Then we have crowds invading a recruiting station in Washington DC. Now…a bombing of a recruiting station in NYC.

The New York Times describes the event thusly:

Blast Damages Times Square Recruiting Station The New York City police just issued a statement describing the source of the explosion as an “improvised explosive device” and putting the time of the blast at 3:43 a.m. Subways and traffic are running normally through Times Square.

At first glance, the explosion seemed reminiscent, in its effects and timing, of two earlier blasts. At about 3:40 a.m. on Oct. 26, 2007, two dummy hand grenades that had been fashioned into crude bombs exploded outside the Mexican Consulate at 27 East 39th Street in Murray Hill, shattering windows. The building was not occupied and no one was hurt. At 3:55 a.m. on May 5, 2005, two crude but powerful explosive devices detonated outside the British Consulate at 845 Third Avenue in East Midtown, shattering windows and damaging a planter.

Just after 6:45 a.m., a handful of law enforcement officers knelt at the foundation of the recruiting station, smashing the carpet of glass shards with long-handled mallets. Two men in hazardous-materials suits stood above them, among more than a dozen investigators from the city’s Police and Fire Departments, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Police vans and squad cars ringed the scene, with clusters of detectives on street corners, paging through notebooks and talking on cellphones.

And while a spokesperson for Homeland Security wouldn’t comment on whether this explosion was related to terrorism the act in itself was a terror attack…an attack in my opinion against those very people who defend us against terror, the U.S. Military.

The left is already in a tizzy over the event worried that it’s going to cause a backlash against them. In the words of Kos Diarist Cool Blue Reason:

“Inevitably, we're going to start hearing about "left-wing terrorism" from the usual suspects in the media. And I'm guessing the drumbeat is going to be especially loud in this political environment.” (continue reading and comment at The Thunder Run)

Comments

[Stormwarning]

KAK, thanks for answering, even though we disagree and remain on opposite ends of the issue.

[KAK]

Well Paul Wolfowitz told us this war would cost 60Billion dollars which we would recoup in oil. As you know it didn't go that way. It's going more like 3.5 billion dollars per week. Let the Russians, let the Iranians move in, Russia has probabally learned what we hopefully will finally learn with it's Afghanistan ten year fiasco, they won't be stupid again and if they are it may be to our advantage, let a war drain them of their finances. Don't worry Russia is not as stupid as us. Bottom line is this war is killing us financially let it kill someone else. The dollar is sinking, faster by every month. Japan and China are funding us, Do you think this is wise policy?

[Stormwarning]

Now, you see...KAK only answered the easy part of the question. There are a minimum of three parts to the real question.

I happen to agree with the principal that Afghanistan was the first front and that we didn't complete the mission at all. Now Afganistan is backsliding, and its neighboring Pashtun stronghold in Pakistan isn't too far behind. Our policies to date in Afghanistan have been tragic in my opinion. As for bin Laden, I answered that question in my PakiSpectator interview. We lacked resolve. I won't append motives to that. And it also must be understood that eliminating bin Laden or Zawahiri does not by definition eliminate the jihad. Its way beyond that at this point. Jihad is here to stay for quite some time to come.

The real question (and wishing that basic HTML things like bold and underlining were available) is Iraq. That is not a simple one. And, while I like Courtney's take on many things, I disagree that taking out Iraq's army was a significant accomplishment (other than, of course, it cost us far fewer US troops in the rout than it might have had the Iraqis actually put up any sort of a fight). I also don't know about "sucking" everyone dry (of resources) is valid either. We are still working very hard at drying up terrorist funding sources. Whether Iran and Syria are affected by what we did to Hussein remains to be seen IMO. Like it or not, tools like FISA and the Patriot Act(s) and other security provisions including the ability to seize funds are critical to our nation's future.

So, now, the question remains. Regardless of the reasons or the merits of having gone into Iraq and eliminating Hussein and his murderous sons, the reality is that we are there (remember what Colin Powell said! - explanation point to avoid that being misconstrued as a rhetorical question). Since we cannot reverse history. the question is how do we manage the region? And yes, it is ours to manage, because if we do not, Iran or Russia will.

NOTHING is simple, and there are no simplistic answers.

[courtneyme109]

Hi Kak. That will be a tough sale in the new millenium. Iraq was brilliant. Consider - knocking out the largest Arab army in history in 20 days - no less, then turning Iraq into a giant sucking killing machine for wanna be jihadi's, Syrian agents, Iranian minions and Al Qaeda fanboy caliphaters.

That was inspired. And it kept unfree, unhinged, intolerant, illegitimate regimes fearing for their lives - sucking them dry of resources, volunteers and cash. Not to mention giving Iraq a real chance to see that there is value in prepping for this life instead of racing to the next.

There may be arguments against this, yet your points, no diss, are not very tight and tend to be stuck back in '03.

I admire your passion and I sympathize. I tried to defend my cat once when she went next door and killed all the neighbors birds. I had nothing either.

[KAK]

Stormwarning I would have gone into Afganistan, I think the public demanded it and at the time I personaly had no objection. Now my feelings are more ambivalent but I know we had to do it with greater force to be more effective and actually give ourselves a chance of getting Bin Laden. I do not think this administration actually wanted to get Bin Laden They were afraid that if we got BinLaden the American public would have demanded a ceasing of military actions and Bush/Cheney wanted oil in Iraq. I think they deliberately let him go. Iraq don't even ask, another story. Iraq is a crime.

[Stormwarning]

Hi KAK! So, aside from the fact that "investigators are working under the theory the explosion is connected to the Mexican consulate bombing last year and the British consulate bombing in 2005," what would you have done in response to Sept. 11th?

As for the name calling and labeling...I happen to agree with you...especially the "word inventions" that seem so prevalent (not on this blog).

[KAK]

The anti war crowd has not gone too far, one asshole has gone too far. Just like one asshole was responsible for 911 with 19 other blind idiots. This is a bogus war on terrorism and Bush has done more damage to this country then 19 fanatics did on September 11,2001. And notice please I don"t get into the little girlie name calling as so many on this site do, and I don't mean you Debbie.

[Skunkfeathers]

Well, Daily Kos, if the leftist, cowardly appeasement to terrorist shoe fits, you're stuck with it. I could tell you where it oughta be stuck, but this isn't my blog, so some degree of manners is called for.