posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 09:11 PM
Just got through watching a segment of H&C on Fox. The subject was the anti-war protests marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
Attention was focused on the burning in effigy of a US flag and soldier by Anarchists.
Sean and Michelle were bound and determined to link this group to the Democratic party leadership through semantic innuendo. Sean said statements made
by Democratic leaders like Mertha and Durbin were encouraging the Anarchists and in effect endorsing the burnings. Michelle said the organizers of the
demonstrations were marching side by side with the Anarchists and basically encouraging the burnings.
Alan and the other guest, Julie, I think, are stating the Anarchist movement is a fringe group and doesn't reflect the views of the mainstream
anti-war crowd. They say no self-respecting member of the Democratic party would endorse the Anarchists' burning of the flag nor the soldier
effigy.
Sean and Michelle are decidedly unconvinced.
I'm curious, if there was an outside influence, who put the Anarchists' up to their evil deeds. Who has the most to gain from their heinous acts? Or
more specifically, who has the most to gain from fanning the flames of the backlash? That is most likely who is behind the acts themselves, imo.