Do you think protesting the war in Iraq gives aid and comfort to the enemy?

Answer 1

It is our right to protest. It's the manner of the protest I take issue with.

It is not the right of congressmen of either party or house to denigrate our military from the floor of congress. When a congress man stands in the House and call our own troops murdering rapists.
Not to mention that when the men were found not guilty the afore mentioned failed to retract his statement or acknowledge their innocence.

Trying to give a time table for with drawl is treasonous.

Publishing information you know to be classified is treason.

Answer 2

No. It's this war -- the US taking over an oil-rich Arab nation for no good reason -- that gives aid and comfort to our enemies -- more than their wildest dreams. Saddam had kept al Qaeda in check -- they could not flourish in Iraq. Now they are having a field day. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and their violent perversion of Islam now seems much less crazy, much more justified -- moderate Islamic voices, the ones we can actually build peace with, are being drowned out.

Protesting the stupidest war in American history, the biggest national mistake ever is just sensible.

Bush and Fox News have deceived us all. And the Republicans and Democrats, the political hacks, let them. It is going to take American citizens getting informed and voting and acting with conscience and principle to save us.

So I think the protest is a good thing. This is not World War II we are protesting. We have sacrificed thousands of American and Iraqi lives, we have wasted precious resources, gone into crippling debt (to China!), and are only creating MORE enemies in the world with this stupid, sad war.

====
Addition: to the poster with the quotes from Democrats on Saddam. No one ever said Saddam was a good guy. But he was not an imminent threat. And we attacked Iraq, and lost focus on Afghanistan, which really was harboring our terrorist enemies. Bush kept promising evidence that NEVER APPEARED regarding Saddam's WMD. He used the authority and credibility of his office to deceive people, and to play partisan power games. He did not listen to the best and the brightest of our country. He was intent on finding a reason to attack Iraq since before 911 -- and had ignored repeated warnings about al Qaeda -- White House officials were trying to warn him and give him a plan of preparedness for the country for MONTHS before the attack.

Iraq had not used terror tactics against the US since 1993 -- partly because the Clinton Administration (including Sandy Berger who you quote above) were SUCCESSFUL in boxing him in. We need vigiliance in monitoring him, yes, as in all things, but it is sheer stupidity to take out the one who isn't actively a threat and replace him with a thousand crazies who hate your living guts.

Answer 3

I am repeating myself: Lack of Support for Bush is NOT an indication of lack of support for the troops. Freedom of speech in this country is guaranteed by the constitution, of which Bush tries to circumvent with his 'free speech' areas - miles from where the protests SHOULD be - and exercising our free speech shows what we DO have in this country. Emboldening the enemy? No, what emboldens them is Bush wiping his behind with the constitution and the geneva conventions by doing what he has with the 'power' he had.

Show real support to the troops, bring them home to their families before anymore of them are killed. Will this embolden terrorists......no, it will only piss ol' GWB/Cheyney off, and they are the biggest terrorists right now.

Answer 4

eh.... not sure... I mean maybe, but at worst, I don't think it would be enough to make any tangible difference in anything...

I guess you have to compare the situation to one where there were no protests... and see if it made a difference?

there were few, if any, protests for years during the Soviets Afghan war... and it didn't seem to help them any...

now granted, it's not exactly the same situation, but I think it's about as close as you can get... Islamic extremists that think they are defending their homeland...

Answer 5

No of course not. Aid and comfort is given to the enemy when they see that the country allows itself to be ruled by fear. Aid and comfort is given to the enemy when they see us altering our lifestyle and making changes to accommodate the threats they make against us.

Protesting a war one does not believe in is not giving aid and comfort to the enemy. One could assume we are irritating and enraging them by not giving into their demands to change and continuing to exercise our rights as Americans.

Answer 6

I don't know about the enemy, but I'm sure it gives a degree of comfort to the families of those young people in uniform who George has used as cannon fodder in his war for oil and the enrichment of Haliburton.

Answer 7

yes in the form of boosting the moral of our enemies and not our own troops. the libs in our country are attracted to their own destruction like moths to the flame.

Answer 8

That is the most illogical statement possible. We had 1/10 of the enemies we have now, before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Answer 9

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear. It has kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor, with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it." -- General Douglas MacArthur, 1957

Answer 10

The continuation of this war is emboldening terrorists.