Well as a purported member of the left I'm trying to sort this out. All the protest I've ssen about this Freedom Walk is over the crassness of what seems to be a celebration to commemorate 9/11. You celebrate things like Independence day, V-Day. You don't have a party on the day Pearl Harbor was bombed.

And as far as anything marking 9/11 I would say the military has no lock over it -- anyone and everyone should feel free to do some kind of memorial on this day. It belongs to all of us.

And hey, if the Left organized a big party bash for 9/11, you know the Right would be all over that too.

As for "Calls from "the opposition" for "the other side" to be silenced speak volumes for the quality of their arguments." -- ehy, there are people who are saying Cindy Sheehan should be considered a traitor, should be silenced. Calls for silencing come from both left and right. You're just more attuned to it when it involves your issues.

A moment of digression:

Now, I've been to the Freedom Walk website and the other part I'm not understanding is how does it support the troops?

It's not raising money.
It's not holding a care packaging party.
It's not sending armored humvees over
It's not signing up new recruits

And speaking of funding, Congress has (unanimously) approved every bit of funding that the administration and military has requested. If you guys are short on stuff, I'd start looking back the pipeline to see what's going on. It ain't a lack of money, that's for sure, and that should make you guys angrier than it does me: if there's something fishy going on, or skimming, or just plain waste or incompetency going on there. For me, it's a waste of my taxpayer money -- but for you guys, you're paying for that with your lives...

OK returning from that digression...

In any case, support or opposition to the war has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's feelings about 9/11. And because of that, linking pro/anti Iraq war elements with this is nonsensical. The anti war groups could also put on something commemorating 9/11 (hopefully not a cheery 4th of July party; I'd object to that too). *That* is the point.

In any case, for the record, I opposed going into Iraq, I do believe the president has provoked this war for personal reasons unrelated to 9/11, and yet at this point I do not believe we can pull out because of the mess that's now over there. We have to clean up before we get out. So in that sense I do not support the withdrawl of the troops. I can only hope we achieve something concrete over there, I really do. And something other than a no-win situation in which we maintain a presence over there for 70 years.

The Pentagon is neither left nor right - it is out of the political mix. That's odd you see it otherwise. Do you also think they were on the left when Clinton was president?

And the gist of the story above is that the unhinged lefty is complaining in a Washington Post story that the Washington Post is publicizing something he doesn't support - meanwhile they're giving him tons of free publicity for his own little hate parade and stinkfest. He's oblivious to his own hypocrisy.

I'm not sure who these people are who demand Sheehan should shut up - most folks simply support her son's views on the War on Terror over hers.

The failure of the left to comprehend even the simplest issues of the world today never ceases to amaze me. But it's a big part of the reason the Democratic Party places second out of two in the past 3 major elections in this country. Go ahead, shift a little farther left...

Here's the fun part, I was linking to this site from here because I'm particularly interested about how current technology is completely undermining efforts by governments to control information and also bypassing traditional journalism (which has its own set of problems, whether you consider the media to have a left OR right bias). I went and checked this link out out of interest, only to find complaints the left is censoring the right.

You *gotta* love the irony.

I'm not sure the words "complaint" and "censoring" mean what you think they mean. The only complaint in this entire discussion is a from guy (admittedly left) demanding to censor the Washington Post - a paper acknowledged as neutral - but failing.

Where is censorship occuring? Who is complaining about it?

Greetings, and thanks to our host Greyhawk. I'm thrilled to find a place with direct information from the troops themselves, and a host who encourages free speech to the extent that he *does* put his life on the line to protect it.

With that respect in mind, on to the topic at hand. First, full disclosure, I see myself as much closer to BEG's position than that of Old Soldier above.

I agree with BEG, that the issue is not the specific hypocrisy or lack thereof in the given WaPo article. The issue is the implied linking of 9/11 to Iraq via this Freedom Walk.

Haven't we mostly agreed that there were no WMD's found in Iraq and more importantly that Saddam wasn't connected with the hijackers who flew the planes in? They were Saudi's,

So, while I can't speak for "The Left," my *perception* of the complaints about the Freedom Walk have nothing to do with remembering 9/11, nor with support for the troops who put their lives on the line for their country. I heartily endorse a government-sponsered rememberance, and support for the troops. But as a member of "The Left," I, and others dislike what appears to be a calculated move to link, for political gain, Iraq with the specific terrorists who attacked the US.

I'll admit I have never fought in a war, and I am sincerely thankful there are men of moral courage and conviction willing to do so on my behalf and in service of this country. But the strength of character of our soldiers doesn't confer infallibility to our President or his administration.

I believe such a linkage, done for what I perceive to be political gain, dishonors the service of all the men and women asked to die over there.

Thanks for letting me have my say.

"Now, I've been to the Freedom Walk website and the other part I'm not understanding is how does it support the troops?"

Morale for one. Also, support is not always greedy material goods and big screen TVs. Sometimes it's simply saying "Good luck, God Speed, Happy Hunting, and Victory!"

Kalroy

"And speaking of funding, Congress has (unanimously) approved every bit of funding that the administration and military has requested."

Not my shop. We had to borrow money to buy thoriated tungsten.

"It ain't a lack of money, that's for sure, and that should make you guys angrier than it does me: if there's something fishy going on, or skimming, or just plain waste or incompetency going on there. For me, it's a waste of my taxpayer money --"

There is a lack of money. Years of cutbacks, trimming, and RiFs have culled the military. As to the angry part, yup, you DO get that from GIs and civillians. There is a huge amount of waste and there is money that just disappears, is misplaced and generally bureaucracized out of existence. This pisses everyone off. Can it be fixed? Possibly, but considering how prevelant the problem is at all levels of government and even people's personal lives it seems that though improvements can be made it will never be eliminated.

"In any case, support or opposition to the war has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's feelings about 9/11. "

From what I've seen this is pretty false. The loudest voices blaming America for 9/11 also seem to be the loudest anti-war voices. The loudest voices blaming militant Islam seem to be the loudest pro-war on terrorism voices.

" And something other than a no-win situation in which we maintain a presence over there for 70 years."

Maintaining a presence there is not automatically a "no-win" situation. History has proven this. It could be a "no-win" situation, but it could also be a huge boon for the US, as historical examples have shown.

Kalroy

Just found your blog through the post. Have not had the time to fully read everything. Thanks for a look at what you faced, my son is scheduled to go to Afganiston in October, and my cousins 2 boys are in Iraq now. What ever ones position on the war supporting the soldiers is important .

GreyHawk, thanks for your efforts in getting this all put together. The Missus too.

I ran across this link in the Post as well, so I spent sometime linkfrogging off your site. Inspite of the politics of the war the troops belong to us all. I have been opposed to this war since it was justa twinkle in the CiC's eye. That is political, and politics stop when it comes to the troops themselves.

They fight and die for us all. I have a kid that is active duty Navy, and so I wish to tell you that when one goes down we all weep, when they are wounded we all pray. When the Congress cuts VA outlays we all raise hell.

The left is not your enemy, they are at worst your political adversary, and I believe you feel that way too. I cannot imagine that if you and I were anywhere in the world and unbeknownst to each other in the same small town that the natives would surely say there were two Americans in town. It is not our differences that define our people, it is our simularity and ability to agree to disagree.

I refuse to be divided by the politicians,pundits and the talking heads, I refuse to be swayed by the rhetoric. I will gather information and make my own assesments of its' worth, and come to a decision. I am thankful that you have provided another source of information in my endeavor.

For what it is worth I disagree with the Post and NY Times all the time too. Perhaps they are doing a better job than I have given them credit for. I hear Jon Stewart also mentioned your site on the tube, but I try to avoid that medium.

To those above who have a problem with this march, it is YOU who are ascribing motivations to the planners. It is very clear, if you visit the website, that the march is planned to commemorate 9/11 and to honor the troops past and present who have defended our freedoms. I hope that you do not consider that to be a political statement. There is no mention of the Iraq war in any of the info about the march AT ALL. You are ascribing that to the planners. Second, the march is a march, not a big party. Yes, they are calling it a "celebration of freedom" but that is a figurative description not a "wahoo, let's party" kind of celebration. I doubt we will be doing the fandango as we march through Arlington Cemetery. The only part of the event that is remotely a celebration is the AFTER march concert by Clint Black...which is being broadcast overseas to the troops that are being supported by this march. Finally, as to the question of how a march that is not designed to raise money could ever support the troops, it is very simple: Morale. Our deployed servicemembers have to hear and read the news about anti-war protests and anti-military attitudes day in and day out.(yes, anti-military attitudes, like harassing recruiters and saying that the "insurgents" in Iraq have a legitimate mission in killing our soldiers) The very article we are discussing talks about yet another anti-war gathering planned for two weeks after the Freedom march. Those who conduct these anti-war marches/gatherings may not believe that they have any effect on the troops, but the aggregate effect of all their negativism can be a downer to morale. This march is an opportunity for the great silent majority of us to bring a positive message of thanks to those troops and it is an opportunity for the troops stationed Around the World, not just in Iraq...in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, all across Africa, Columbia, etc,etc fighting the war on terror, to see that a great number of people here do care about them and want them to do well in their mission - Please explain to me what could possibly be wrong with that?????
Oh and by the way, you don't hear the Pentagon telling the anti-war protestors that they shouldn't have their protest and concert (celebration?) two weeks after, just the opposite. Who really supports free speech?

There is a war that cannot be won: it is the war of trying to free the mind of close-minded liberals. There is no amount of reason that can convince them of the value of victory in the current war we are fighting against fanatical Islamic jihadis (no it is not a war against all Islam).

So we must just keep shoving the liberals aside and keep on getting to business of securing freedom even for idiots who neither appreciate it nor know how to defend it.