Many "peace" marchers, of course, are not anti-American, just antiwar. That's the point of all the news articles saying the movement has "broadened," i.e., pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. However, we should all pay some heed to whom we hang out with. Tom Bevan, a blogger at RealClearPolitics, put it nicely: "It matters a great deal who is organizing the protests. I don't absolve the `true' antiwar protesters for taking part in a march organized by American-hating groups any more than I'd absolve someone who marched in a legitimate protest of immigration laws if it was sponsored by the KKK."
Sometimes it seems the movement is determined to marginalize itself. The recent vomit-in by peacemongers in San Francisco is a perfect example. Throwing up on or near passers-by may be fun, but this is not a technique likely to attract converts. The same is true of antiwar banners that say things like: "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."
Even Michael Moore's harmless little outburst at the Oscars reflected this no-converts-please strategy. By arguing that Bush is a "fictitious president" and that his election was essentially a fraud, Moore in effect was saying he would rather keep the antiwar movement small and enraged than welcome any Bush voters to its ranks. He's got a strategy. It just isn't a very bright one.