Walter Reed Protesters Now Lying About Signs

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Walter Reed Protesters Now Lying About Signs

By Rob on August 30, 2005 at 05:08 pm

Hmm...

(CNSNews.com) - The anti-war group Code Pink, slammed by conservatives and some wounded veterans for co-sponsoring recent protests in front of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., now suggests that the most inflammatory signs held up at the protests might have been the work of "infiltrators whose aim [was] to disrupt the vigil."

Well, I suppose that's plausible. Except...

Among the most controversial signs held up at the protests was the one reading "Maimed for a Lie." But far from qualifying as an "infiltrator," Kevin McCarron, a spokesman for another anti-war group sponsoring the demonstrations, was photographed on June 17 holding the "Maimed for a Lie" sign himself.

Whoops.

Previous posts here and here.

(via Betsy's Page)

Comments

Whoops.

Boy I hate it when that happens.

MikeAdamson on August 30, 2005 at 09:09 pm

The article addresses neither the other signs in question nor who the potential infiltrators are/were. THAT is the news, not the appropriateness of any of their signs (if you disagree, I suggest a priority check). But leave it to a news source that headlines a previous article about the protest group “Anti-war protests target wounded at army hospital” (when in fact the protestors repeatedly asserted that they didn’t seek audience from the wounded) to play with what’s important and the above happens. To be honest, the fact that this mcwallawalla guy concedes to the inappropriateness of his own sign is evidence to me that he’s a sham altogether...intention being to make protestors look bad altogether as well. Plus why is this guy the televised spokesman for the anti-war sentiment? Why not parenti? I would fucking love to see michael parenti counter the probative script that comes out of politicians’ mouths. He would leave them standing in their own reality. Why this guy who thinks his own sign might have been a bad idea? Because it’s superficially bad for his consensus as well, and we’re suckers for superficial crap (survey says).

keep it simple on August 30, 2005 at 10:09 pm

If they are not targeting the wounded, why are they at the entrances of one of the primary facilities for those wounded? Your disingenuousness on this is comical. The disingenuousness of these demonstrators is transparent and comical. Just admit what you believe. We all know it allready.

2Hotel9 on August 31, 2005 at 06:08 am

Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, The article addresses neither the other signs in question nor who the potential infiltrators are/were.

You mean who the alleged potential infiltrators are/were.

THAT is the news, not the appropriateness of any of their signs (if you disagree, I suggest a priority check).

A “priority check” from you is meaningless.

But leave it to a news source that headlines a previous article about the protest group “Anti-war protests target wounded at army hospital” (when in fact the protestors repeatedly asserted that they didn’t seek audience from the wounded)...

Which is a completely disingenious assertion.

likwidshoe on August 31, 2005 at 06:08 pm

Page 1 of 1