Cliff Kincaid is a big fat idiot. There is no way to be civil about this matter, now that one of the ringleaders of Accuracy in Media has written that "Anti-War Protests Kill Americans."
It's even better than you think. Despite that provocative headline, Kincaid doesn't have the guts to reaffirm the title in the article's text. Instead, he answers his hypothetical question with distorted evidence and craven qualifications like "it's worth considering" and "one thing's for certain." And then he does what they all do when they don't have a leg to stand on: he piles on further inflammatory, unsupported, and irrelevant allegations (irrelevant to the question of whether anti-war protests actually kill Americans). Thus, before the rage-inhibited can seriously consider the evidence of the first four paragraphs, Kincaid moves quickly to al-Zawahiri's supposed comparison of Iraq to Vietnam and then to al-Jazeera's "emergence" as "another powerful weapon at (the enemy's) disposal," neither of which directly relates to "whether anti-war protests kill Americans."
Anyway, let's get back to the pertinent question, of whether anti-war protests kill Americans. I've already said that my right to give honest counsel to my Representatives in Congress and to the President is inviolate, and the right to protest is implicit in that right. I've also already said that there are plenty of more compelling reasons Americans are dying in Iraq -- the foolishness of the mission and the incompetence and greed of our war leaders chief among them. So what motherlode of evidence does Cliff Kincaid to suggest I'm wrong? Here's all of it: a) "October was reported to be the deadliest month for U.S. troops since January," and the media gave "heavy publicity" to the September 24 anti-war march; and b) "one of the organizations behind the event posted an article urging 'solidarity' with the 'Iraqi fighters' and 'resistance' killing American troops and innocent civilians in Iraq."
What a formidable feat of rhetorical invention. As for point a): the "since January" is an arbitrary deadline imposed by the author. The months of January 2005, November 2004, April 2004, and November 2003 were far deadlier than October 2005, and only one of these four months followed a significant (and, more to the point, not well-covered) anti-war protest. As for point b): an article circulated by "one organization," even one "behind the event," obviously doesn't prove that everyone in the anti-war movement feels "solidarity" with the "Iraqi resistance." Anti-war protestors are a diverse lot; they even include many war veterans and political conservatives. I guess it's just easier for Kincaid to stereotype us.
Remember, kids, there's no need to find out what's going on in George W. Bush's America. All you have to do is seize upon the first factoid that confirms your prejudices. It works for Cliff Kincaid (or "insert name of other right-wing blowhard") and it can work for you, too.