"'The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples,' Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu."

So if the troops feel demoralized because the Bush Administration makes idiotic tactical moves, or fails to provide adequate armor or ammo or materiel, or because representatives of our closest ally confirm that intelligence was fixed around the policy, then the American Legion will stand against the Bush Administration?

If Nutria or Asperia or whatever RJR tobacco calls themselves these days hikes the price of cigarettes by 25¢ a pack, and the troops become demoralized by that, does the American Legion stand against RJR Euphemismia Tobacco?

If a study in JAMA finds that fried foods are dangerous to your health and the troops get demoralized because they prefer fried foods, does the American Legion stand against Journal of the American Medical Association, or against fried foods, or what?

If launching illegal invasions encourages "terrorists" (lumping together the usual terrorists as well as anyone who fights back against illegal US invasions), then does the American Legion stand against the Bush Administration for launching illegal invasions?

If launching the invasion of Iraq with tactics like "Shock and Awe" fulfills the standard definition of terrorism in U.S. Code and army manuals, then does the American Legion stand against the terrorists who launch illegal invasions?

This is why it's not a clear cut issue like this guy wants it to be. Depending on how you interpret the Constitution, US law, international law and/or recent events, it might not be the peaceniks who are endangering troops and "encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks". It might be the Bush and his supporters. Peaceniks might be the truly "freedom-loving peoples."