John Edwards Spokesman Protested with Code Pink Traitors at Walter Reed

John Edwards spokesman, Iraq war veteran John Bruhns, has been defending the Edwards presidential campaign from criticism over Edwards' call for people to protest the Iraq war at Memorial Day parades.

Appearing via telephone on the Fox News Channel's 'Big Story with John Gibson', Bruhns said that the Edwards campaign is backing away from the call to publicly protest the war at parades and is instead asking supporters to send care packages and to reflect on the war.

While Bruhns said that he himself did not support Edwards' call to protest at Memorial Day parades, he failed to mention that he has protested the war at a similarly hallowed setting: Walter Reed Army Medical Center where grieviously wounded Iraq and Afghan vets struggle to recover from their war wounds.

Bruhns spent several Friday nights outside the main gate to Walter Reed in 2005 with the terrorist supporting Marxist front group Code Pink after the group became notorious for taunting wounded soldiers with signs like "Maimed for a Lie" and "Enlist Here and Die for Halliburton."

Bruhns is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. IVAW called our soldiers in Iraq war criminals in testimony before the World Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul, Turkey in 2005. The tribunal endorsed the terrorists in Iraq and their killing of American soldiers.

Bruhns is currently featured in a pro-surrender ad by Votevets.org that was directed by Oliver Stone.

He may have to sue himself for slandering himself:

I attended the WR demonstration a total of two times. The first time I went I was under the impression that the vigil was taking place in response to the BRAC decision to close Walter Reed.

The first vigil that I attended left me very impressed and encouraged. I observed the members of the vigil to be against the war in Iraq and President Bush's policies, but at the same time very supportive of the troops. The main message of the vigil (in my opinion) was to end the war, increase veteran's benefits, and provide adequate health care to the troops.

No kidding!

In the above quoted article (which used to be posted on Code Pink's website, until they scrubbed any mention of him from there), Bruhns said this:

Once I learned about the vigil I decided to get out there and see what it was about.

The first vigil that I attended left me very impressed and encouraged. I observed the members of the vigil to be against the war in Iraq and President Bush’s policies, but at the same time very supportive of the troops. The main message of the vigil (in my opinion) was to end the war, increase veteran’s benefits, and provide adequate health care to the troops. As a veteran of the Iraq war I felt patriotic just to be in the presence of the people conducting the vigil.

... All I ask is that when you view the vigil please do so with an open mind. We are only conducting the vigil for peace and justice. If the vigil were really against the troops, I would not be involved because I am a troop. The members of the vigil are nothing but supportive of our brave men and women in uniform. Please keep this in mind no matter how hard the opposition attempts to smear our message.

...

BUT, in his letter to Jim, he said this:

The first time I went I was under the impression that the vigil was taking place in response to the BRAC decision to close Walter Reed. I attended one more and realized it was wrong and even requested for CODEPINK to take my information off their website and also to stop conducting the demonstrations. I even reached out to the other side in a very respectful manner. I do not condone any demonstrations from either organization outside of Walter Reed.

So, did he like them because they were against the war and Bush, or did he like them because they were against the BRAC closing WRAMC?

Also notice the text I highlighted in red. At the time he wrote that first quoted piece, talking about the antiwar theme of the Code Pink protests, he said, "The first vigil that I attended...", which means that he had attended at least more than just one, or he would have simply said, "The vigil that I attended."

OK, so if in the first quoted article (Sept 19, 2005), in which he was so supportive of Code Pink's WRAMC protests - from having attended more than one time - what made him change his tune so radically by the date of his email to Jim (May 22, 2007)?

Thank s to AlGore's greatest invention, the internet, a person's past words are very difficult to erase when one wants (for whatever reason) to cleanse "the record" of them.

He seems to have made conflicting statements.

Johno, You be missin' the BIG picture. And that is that Islamic Fascists are trying to take over the world. They want the west to submit to Islam, or else they are determined to destroy western civilization. They have been at it since the 1970s, it began with the Olympic Games in Munich.

Thank you for your service in fighting the Islamic Fascists.

Get behind the troops so we can win, we are in the end game.

The ISlamic Fascists are the same type as the Nazis were, only this time we are not waiting for them to kill 6 million jews before we intervene.

Thats a VERY good thing.

GREAT JOB, DC Chapter!

As usual. :o)

I particularly like THIS thread:

How Many Times Did John Bruhns Stand With Code Pink At Walter Reed?
Multiple Freepers' and bloggers' cameras and audio recorders | May 29, 2007
Posted on 05/29/2007 8:45:58 PM PDT by tgslTakoma

August 26, 2005:

Here is the official Freep report for this date. and in this photo from that thread, John Bruhns is front and center, holding the Stars and Stripes:

Here is Freeper Plea Deal's report and photos. Blogger Tantor also has a report, here. Freeper Tom the Redhunter has his blog report here. Andi of Andi's World wrote a report on her blog here...
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.