By now we are all familiar with the arguments of those who have opposed the U.S./U.K./Australian war with Iraq. An analysis of those arguments, by and large, reveals the protesters' tendency to grossly oversimplify things, if not get them outright wrong. That tendency continues.

From Daily Kos, an anti-war blog:

It must be nice being President Bush, with everything being black and white. Today he will announce the war is over.

The tone is decidedly cynical, and the phrase "the war is over" links to an article in the Washington Post. From the context, including quotes from a different news article about an anti-American demonstration in Iraq and an incident in which U.S. soldiers were wounded in a grenade attack, one would presume that the linked Post article says that Bush will announce the war is over.

What the Washington Post article actually says is this:

President Bush plans to deliver an address to the nation tonight in which he will declare that "major combat operations" by U.S. military forces in Iraq have ended, the White House announced yesterday. [...] "This is not, from a legal point of view, the end of hostilities," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "Clearly, we continue to have forces that are shot at and return fire."

I don't know how someone could read the article and interpret anything in it as "Today he will announce the war is over." I really don't.

To be fair, that blogger isn't the only protester who sees things, how shall I say this kindly, not quite as they are. Seems some of the more outspoken anti-war celebrities can't quite get it right either.

From Reuters:

"What's the point of me saying anything right now, while they're [presumably the Bush Administration, or perhaps war supporters] in the end zone doing the dance and spiking the football?" [former MASH star Mike] Farrell said.

"Before [coming out against the war] I was a moderately well-known character actress," [Janeane Garofalo] told the paper. "Now, I'm almost famous."

So that's what this war is -- a game, or a career-enhancement opportunity. Hmmm.

I suppose that people who hold such distorted views of reality where war is concerned can't be expected to understand, say, the Constitution of the United States either. It has become an oft-repeated charge by the protesters that their free speech rights are being quashed because, for example, the Baseball Hall of Fame uninvited Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins to a Bull Durham anniversary event and some consumers have stopped buying Dixie Chicks albums.

From Australia's The Age:

"[The Baseball Hall of Fame] is using what power it has to infringe upon my rights of free speech with the hope to intimidate millions of others who disagree with our president," Robbins said in a stinging riposte.

And from CommonDreams.org last week:

"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves [...]," [Bruce] Springsteen said in a statement that was set to be posted today on [his] Web site.

My heart bleeds. To all but the most self-absorbed cry-babies, the right to freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to be agreed with, nor does it require those who don't agree with you to honor you at a recreational event or buy your records. While the government (usually) can't take action against you for saying what you think, any non-government entity or individual sure can shun you if they want to. It's called freedom of association. It's why some people have from time to time chosen not to ride on segregated buses or buy non-union grapes or listen to the Rush Limbaugh show. The fact that these people aren't in jail for saying what they think is proof positive that their free speech rights are secure, as are the rights of those they piss off to tell them to go to hell.

Sometimes reality sucks, doesn't it?