We are all patriots, not just arrogant generals with big mouths
T.A. Barnhart
The last thing this country needs are military commanders who think they have a corner on the patriotism market, but that's what we get in Maj. Gen. Mick Bednarek, commander of the 1st Army Division East:
"Honor. Duty. Patriotism," Bednarek said. "Unfortunately, there's way too many people in our country who have forgotten it, don't understand it or never got it." - Savannah (GA) Morning News
Bednarek was speaking at the final deployment ceremony for 3,000 Oregon National Guard troops from the 41st Brigade Combat Team and their gathered family and friends, and he decided that it was not enough to praise the Guard. No, Gen Bednarek had to attack Americans who hold a different set of opinions than does he about what patriotism might mean.
My older son was one of those 3,000 troops standing in the Georgia heat listening to Bednarek, Gov Ted Kulongoski and others go through the standard motions of saying goodbye-and-good-luck while they stay safely at home. And while Ted is smart enough, and democratic enough, to know how greatly personal opinions vary on these matters, apparently Gen Bednarek never got that memo.
Gen Bednarek is a fool.
I still oppose this mission. I oppose America's heart-felt dedication to militarism. I oppose the idea that guns fix a damn thing in this world. I believe that honor and duty and patriotism all require me to speak out against against the on-going occupation of a sovereign nation. And I goddamn sure oppose the idea that patriotism means we support what the military is doing just because it's the military doing it.
For too many years now, those of us who haven't gratefully bowed our heads in joyous acknowledgement of war and militarism have been accused of being unpatriotic and of helping to undermine the American way of life, whatever that might be. And while some spoke ill of American troops during Vietnam, it's been a very long time since I have heard more than a few isolated voices attacking personally the men and women in uniform. So I have no idea what bee crawled up Gen Bednarek's butt, but I do know this:
I'll match my patriotism against his any day. I know I have done my duty as a citizen, both in my four years in uniform and as an activist who believes that much of what ails this country could be fixed rather easily by chopping the military-industrial complex's tax-fed feeding trough in half. Perhaps some hippie bad-mouthed Bednarek in his youth, but he's not old enough to have served in Vietnam; so I'm not sure what prompted him to make such an inane statement.
There is simply no call for a military leader to be stating that many of his fellow countrymen and women don't understand or get what patriotism is simply because they don't agree with him. His job is to train soldiers for war; he did that, and so his last task should have been to congratulate them and then shut the hell up.
Our country's diversity is immense and, for many people, frightening. We've already seen tragic cases this year where frightened, twisted Americans have resorted to violence to attack those whom they fear — whose differences they fear. For a general of the Army to make divisive, reckless comments of this sort is grotesque, shameful and unprofessional.
And stupid.
Not to be overly dramatic, but I may never see my son again. To have his final official duty in this country include listening to words that attack his father — for I am surely one of those whom Gen Bednarek does not believe understands patriotism — makes me angry to the point of nausea. My son has a chosen a course I disagree with in many ways, and he knows this. Yet he also knows I love him and that, in ways I cannot articulate and he doesn't understand, I also support him. I doubt he was paying much attention to the noises being made by politicians and brass at that ceremony; he was undoubtedly waiting to get out of the heat and see his wife one last time.
But I heard, General. Your words were inappropriate, irresponsible and reprehensible. The Constitution you swore to uphold was written in large part to ensure that despite our multiple differences, we Americans could still live in peace. Before you pontificate about the sanctity of your beliefs, General, think about millions of Americans who, for over two centuries, have believed many different things about this country, about duty and honor, about what it means to be a patriotic citizen. Your words disgrace the memory of those Americans, many thousands of whom fought and died for this nation without believing anything that comes close to your definition of what it means to be a patriot. The arrogance your words revealed is unbecoming of an officer, an American and, above all, a patriot.
General, we're all in this together, and we will win through not by telling one another that we're wrong but by telling one another: I respect and honor you as my fellow citizen. Only in that way can we maintain a dialogue about the course of our nation that will allow us to continue to forge the difficult and precious path to shared prosperity and mutual safety. We do not have to share the same beliefs to share the same nation, but I guess that's something you do not believe, either.
General, you owe millions of honorable, duty-driven and patriotic Americans an apology. And that includes my Iraq-bound son and his father.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 4, '09
Seems like you're jumping to conclusions unless you have some evidence beyond what's in the article. All he did was ask people to stand up and cheer if they were proud of their children in the military. That doesn't necessarily mean proud of the mission or proud of killing. He said that he believes that honor, duty and patriotism are lacking, but he didn't say (at least not in the article above) what form that takes or who those people are. Maybe he means apathetic Americans whether conservatives in the burbs more concerned with their SUV payment than the children dying in Iraq and Iran. Maybe he means protestors, pacifists, and freegans. Who knows. Seems like you're reading a lot into a relatively simple statement, trying to find something offensive that's not explicitly there.
Personally, I'm proud and in awe of anyone willing to sacrifice and make a commitment to our country, risking life and limb, whether it's as a person in the military, doing their obligation whether they believe in every cause or not, or whether it's someone who goes overseas as part of Mercy Corps or Doctors Without Borders or The Red Cross.
6:16 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
pay attention, extra. i'm one of the protestors & pacificists. that's the point. and he doesn't get to judge anyone, apathetic or otherwise. again, that's the point.
as for your last sentence: i agree. i was trying to find a way to fit something like that in, but went more general. Bednarek's view of patriotism is self-righteous & narrow, and he should keep his mouth shut about it in front of kids who may well soon be injured or dead.
Jul 4, '09
Oh, but we are!
Where are these images to come from (assuming you don't become the #1 read pundit in the next week)? Most our overseas abuses were proudly enacted by Hollywood, subsidized by government, and consumed as entertainment by the perps. It's the basis of an entire industry, i.e. video games (also subsidized as high tech.).
Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul showed what framing the world to a different picture is all about, yet were rejected by the one party, two faced system. I just can't get into tinkering with the machinery, for the Dems, when we need a new model.
That doesn't necessarily mean proud of the mission or proud of killing. Would someone that says this kind of thing please delineate where personal responsibility ends? Again, do the mainstream of either party even conform to what would be considered legal at Nuremberg? Do you think those that had their heads bashed in at the Dem convention in 1968 would be best pleased or surprised at this being a Dem attitude? Of course they would respond, "but by now you'd have other major parties". And when they found out that the earth was on fire and the Greens weren't as electable as the Dems, they would say, "oh, the corps won, eh?".
6:26 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
Thank you, TA, for this powerful and personal reflection. Thank you also for the sacrifice you, your family, and your son are making. I pray that it is no more than time and labor.
I don't know what Gen Bednarek said or meant. I wasn't there. But I have no doubt that there are many in this country whose idea of patriotism excludes those who oppose reckless and discretionary war. But that's not love of country, that's love of war.
Again, thank you.
Jul 4, '09
If the General were a true patriot he'd honor his oath and order his troops to march on Washington DC to overthrow the government.
Jul 4, '09
I don't get it, though, TA. You're judging him. Why can you make a judgment about him, specifically, based on limited information, but he doesn't have the right to say his opinion about the populace in general? It's just his opinion and almost certainly his feelings, whether entirely correct or not, about how people generally act is at least as valid as your specific judgment about him, who I am assuming you haven't talked to or discussed this issue with. Again, unless you have some more detail other than that quote in the article.
I agree that we could use more civility in this country, more understanding, more empathy, less demagoguery, less accusation, etc, but that has to extend to your comments as well. You're making a very specific and harsh judgment about this guy that just seems unjustified and hypocritical.
Jul 4, '09
Old Ducker: 18 U.S.C.A. $ 2385 outlaws advocating overthrow of the U.S. government by force.
Why do you hate America so much, Old Ducker?
Jul 4, '09
Stephan, The US code does not supercede the Constitution. The purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee the right of forceful revolt against the US government if it gets out of line. Today, "well regulated" means a bunch of laws. In 1789 it meant "stay in shape, practice and keep your powder dry, boys!" If you research the subject, you will find out I am correct.
I don't hate my country, I hate its' government. A distinction it seems that is lost on the left and the right.
8:08 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
Oh, it's clear what General Bednarek meant & T.A. nailed it. Thanks T.A.
If patriotism means love of country, I guess I'm a patriot up to a point, though there are many things I also don't love about our country. If patriotism means militaristic nationalism and all its entailments, then I'm not, I'm against that.
Among the things I don't love are rituals of obeisance to the sacralization of war. Loving one's country doesn't demand treating war as sacred.
Nor military budgets, for that matter ...
AUJ, I fully accept your choice, but I wonder what you do instead? My experience is that the futility of working inside the DP is matched only by the futility of working outside of it -- I've done much more of the latter than the former, come to it. Have you something that you think may actually work, or is it just an existential stance...?
Jul 4, '09
Ducker: wouldn't it be more accurate to say you hate the U.S. government when it does something you perceive to be bad and/or illegal/unconstitutional?
What about the support for the FDN Contras based in Honduras, during the '80s? How'd you feel about that?
8:27 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
Stephen,
The Supreme Court has ruled that mere speech advocacy of overthrowing the government by force is not a punishable offense. The case was ca. 1959 & it overturned the Smith Act which was used to prosecute communists in Leninist parties, both the CPUSA and Trotskyists.
In the 1970s or early 1980s there was a prosecution of the revolution-advocating Socialist Workers Party (the remnant of what had once been the original Trotskyist party in the U.S.) The SWP's defense was that they posed no actual threat to the U.S. government, on which argument they won the case. The Village Voice reported on the victory under the headline "Socialism in One Building."
Ducker, there were deep divisions in the early Republic among those who thought as you say (nany of whom thought it though from a populist, Jacobin point of view), and those who distrusted and feared the rabble, as reflected in the many democracy limiting aspects of the Constitution. The Second Amendment represents an artful compromise. It doesn't say "a well prepared militia," it says "a well regulated militia." I.e. under control.
You also miss an important source of the Second Amendment: the absolutely crucial function of local militias in maintaining slavery and damping down the deep fears among slave-owners of rebellion by the enslaved. The Bill of Rights was passed December 15, 1791 -- the slave uprising the began the first Haitian Revolution and led ultimately to the Louisiana purchase began in October that year.
Jul 4, '09
Chris: I am somewhat aware of that history- I vaguely had the knowledge that an actual threat must be perceived for there to be prosecution.
I was taking Old Ducker at his words. He advocated a forceful overthrow of the U.S. government. In my response I was attempting to get at his idea of what the U.S. is, if it is not the laws of the land.
I think Old Ducker is a worshipper of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Not sure-that's my guess. Just trying to smoke him out as to what his definition of America is.
Jul 4, '09
Stephan, my view is that Geo. Washington was a pretty decent president and it's been downhill since. I really prefer the Articles of Confederation. Had it not been for all the war debt, I think it could have survived.
I'm not a Reagan fan, although he gave good speeches. The last president who actually took his oath of office seriously was Cal Coolidge.
Jul 4, '09
@TA and others
I think you are allowing you liberal bias to hide from you what he really meant. It is not surprising as you often do. You assume that if someone is questioning someone's patriotism, they must be talking to liberals.
To the contrary, I believe he was talking to the conservatives who advocate for war, lie about war, don't provide soldiers with the needed equipment, don't care about adequate resources to care for the wounded, all while sitting on their fat asses in the comfort of an air conditioned homes. How can any able bodied conservative, who supports this war, sit on their ass while the military was forced to lower their recruitment standards to sub-standard levels? That sure as hell is not 'supporting the troops' in my book.
If you are an able bodied supporter of this war, shut up, stand up and enlist. That is the embodiment of Honor. Duty. Patriotism.
God Bless America. Have a safe 4th.
9:18 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
The US code does not supercede the Constitution. The purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee the right of forceful revolt against the US government if it gets out of line.
Based on what court decision, please?
9:21 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
Stephan, my view is that Geo. Washington was a pretty decent president and it's been downhill since. I really prefer the Articles of Confederation. Had it not been for all the war debt, I think it could have survived.
No, it wouldn't have. The states would not allow taxation to raise an army for national defense. Eventually we'd have lost an invasion to the British or maybe the Spanish.
Not to mention the fact that the various states were squabbling over dumb interstate trade agreements and other petty arguments. The Articles were terrible and without the Constitution we'd have ceased to exist as an entity long ago.
Jul 4, '09
Look at the bright side: if he's injured overseas, there's only a Million of us veterans ahead of him in the backlog awaiting benefits.
10:07 p.m.
Jul 4, '09
So cool that I read the title and I knew who wrote it before I saw T.A's name...nothing if not an original.
I agree that Bednarik was questioning the patriotism of those who oppose this war... questioning your government, in an attempt to make it more perfect, is the ultimate patriotic act.
As I've written to you before, I can't imagine, as the mother of two young boys, sending one off to war, much less one that you're opposed to with all your heart. Hang in there and imagine that first hug when he returns.
Jul 4, '09
My problem with this issue is what it has been before blogs existed.
Dan Inouye lost a limb in WWII but there are some who have questioned his patriotism because of his ethnic background.
Saxby Chambliss attacked multiple combat amputeeMax Cleland for not being patriotic (how dare he vote against a bill Pres. Bush wanted and vote for an alternate version instead?!), and when the wife of another Vietnam vet asked, "what did they want, a 4th limb?", she too was attacked. But somehow it was subversive to ask for Chambliss's military record. Those like Gingrich and Cheney were more patriotic than combat vets because they had the "correct" patriotic politics?
This is not partisan-- it was Brian Boquist, Iraq vet, who said in a House speech that "support the troops" did not mean car magnets, it meant hot meals, cold drinks, vehicles appropriate for the mission. Where were Gingrich, Cheney, et al on those issues?
Which is why Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 4, 2009 9:09:27 PM deserves respect.
"Shut up, cheer the troops, don't question policy if you want to be considered patriotic" shows the attitude of someone who has not read the First Amendment recently.
12:03 a.m.
Jul 5, '09
Kristin, thanks for saying that. T.A., what she said speaks for me too. Thanks for your courage to speak out at what must be a time of stress and worry.
12:48 a.m.
Jul 5, '09
"If the General were a true patriot he'd honor his oath and order his troops to march on Washington DC to overthrow the government." - old ducker's an idjit, but this did make me lol. really. thx, dude.
runner-up points to mp for his 180-spin to point out my liberal bias. i assume the first thing you'll be doing on Monday, mp, is enlisting. send us greetings from Afghanistan, pls.
12:50 a.m.
Jul 5, '09
kristin, the goal is to make sure you never face this with your sons. enough is enough. we're going to bankrupt as a nation, and we're taking the world down with us, and the money that floods the Pentagon and their corporate allies is destroying us all. even if we don't spend that money on anything else, it'll be money the taxpayers can keep for something more useful than bombs, nukes and millions of engines of death.
enough is enough.
Jul 5, '09
enough is enough?
TA, How can you place so much blame on pentagon spending and pretend the other massive spending plays no roll? How do you explain California? Or how about the mission creep at all levels over the last decades? Presription drug entitlement without means testing or funding? How about the imminent cap and trade? All things including everything GOVERNMENT does will cost more and there's no funding. The entire government approach we are witnessing guarantees massive and soaring debt with or without your vision of cutting the pentagon.
So let's assume you get your way. Are you declaring debt victory? There's not a shred of evidence that would be the case. All things point to government expansion, entitlement expansion debt expansion and at a trajectory worse than the California model.
It seems all you progressives can do is cheer the growth.
Jul 5, '09
Pacifists suck.
In the western word it's a "moral" philosophy that is only possible for a free rider cruising in the comfort and safety provided by stand-up folks like Mr. Barnhart's son.
"I oppose the idea that guns fix a damn thing in this world."
Someone with a gun could have fixed Naveed Afzal Haq's lame ass for good on July 29, 2006. Some folks just can't be reasoned with and need to be put down.
As for insurrectionists:
Most BOers would have criticized the Founders' hate speechifying, deplored their attachment to guns and religion, publicly excoriated them as divisive elitists interested only in protecting ill gotten gains, and turned them in to the proper authorities given half a chance.
Jul 5, '09
Gee, patriots, I wish I hadn't lost my faith in God or goodness during my little trip to Vietnam, then I could be absolutely positive that your sorry souls would rot in hell for eternity.
12:24 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
"Honor. Duty. Patriotism," Bednarek said. "Unfortunately, there's way too many people in our country who have forgotten it, don't understand it or never got it."
I don't know, T.A. Maybe Bednarek was referring to George "AWOL" W. Bush or Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney regarding their own lack of service yet undiminished ardor for sending others off to fight?
The decision of when our military fights is up to the civilian leaders in this country. The decision to serve is up to those who step up and volunteer--as did you and likewise did the audience of troops Bednarek was giving a pep talk to. The civilian leadership let our troops down with both the invasion and subsequent mismanagement of the war in Iraq. The troops who continue to sign up to serve in the national guard and regular military despite the flaws in judgment shown by the civilian leadership deserve a general who supports them, and Bednarek, despite his perhaps impolitic wording, seems to fit the bill on that score. Though the mistakes of Rumsfeld, Cheney & Bush are off the scale when it comes to stupidity, there will always be errors and misjudgments from both civilian and military leaders in any conflict; that we have people willing to serve despite this is greatly to their credit. I understand you're angry and I understand why, but I don't think Bednarek is a fit target for your outrage--focus on the civilian leadership (currently Democratic) that still needs to step up and finish this endless nonsense.
12:26 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
Wierd back and forth here. Everybody has a right to oppose various aspects of government that they find disagreeable, dangerous or flat out unlawful.
TA and his supporters are unhappy that their tax dollars go out to the militarists and their profit centers, and oppose state killing overseas, while Richard and Boats are furious that somewhere, someone might be getting a mouthful of food on their taxpayer dime.
I wonder who will find favor with the old Judeo-Christian Higher Power.
Just sayin'.........
12:35 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
Matthew 25:31
Jul 5, '09
The Supernatural Boogeyman ain't getting anyone. On the other hand, retroactive abortions are earned every day the world 'round.
Jul 5, '09
You see Kari, the irony is that it all falls down for you because you are supposed to do your kind deeds out of your own resources, not strong arm the public and do them with other peoples' cash.
The standard Democratic Party approach has way more in common with the money changers' den of thieves than with classical Christian charity. Another problem arises in that you folks demand way more than a half gold shekel annually for your secular ministry.
Jul 5, '09
I am thankful that our military help to make it possible for TA and others to speak their mind, despite what they may say or do.
We can't always agree on their mission, but we all should be thankful that they do volunteer and follow the orders of their civilian commanders regardless of their own personal beliefs and feelings.
Duty, honor, and country are their top priorities.
Jul 5, '09
@TA you dumbass
Try reading my post in its entirety before commenting. I WAS SUPPORTING YOU and mocking conservatives on their faux patriotism.
Jul 5, '09
It should be clear from the tone of the post that TA is pacifist-aggressive.
Jul 5, '09
BTW, happy 63rd birthday to the bikini:
<img src="http://images110.fotki.com/v1539/photos/1/127099/5493817/78104-vi.jpg"/>
Debuted this date, 1946, in Paris by M. Reard, a French fashion designer.
Jul 5, '09
Pat Ryan, Just saying? Or just imagining.
That's how your characterization appears. Imagined. Of course you give TA the benefit of a rational viewpoint and forego that allowance in imagining my viewpoint to be the very irrational "furious opposition to anyone getting getting a mouthful of food on their taxpayer dime."
How typical of a blue to cast my positon as oppostion to basic kindness.
That makes it easy for you to cling to the blue view and ignore my real position.
How is it that you blues so often refuse to get and respond to our actual points? Versus your fabrications you prefer to respond to?
Just to clarify, my position is one that supports a strong military yet not a pentagon riddled with waste and backroom deals running up the cost. I would even look at closing bases in Japan and Germany.
I also support goverment help for the genuine needy and many of the progams that deliver basic services. But again I find fault with waste, fraud, abuse and endless government mission creep as if every expansion is needed. That's nonsense and completely unaffordable. We'll have to reverse our goverment growth if we are to find a sustainble level and avoid the country becoming a gargantuan California nightmare.
On the wat to remedy it would be constructive to at least represent the real conservative postions instead of making up irrational ones to oppose and use to justify more government we cannot fund. Carving up the military budget will save some money but not fund the out of control goverment expansion.
Jul 5, '09
The General must have been thinking about the "patriots" in Portland sporting the "Fuck The Troops" banners and burning soldiers in effigy a couple of years back when he made his remarks. Good man, spot on.
Jul 5, '09
"The General must have been thinking about the "patriots" in Portland sporting the "Fuck The Troops" banners and burning soldiers in effigy a couple of years back when he made his remarks. Good man, spot on."
Yes, because burning soldiers in effigy is far worse than burning real people and sending US soldiers--5,014 at last check--to die.
Jul 5, '09
Jim, I'm just trying to give the perspective from a soldier's point of view. Many voices opposing the war have crossed the line from merely opposing the war to actively opposing the soldiers. A soldier is willing to give his life to defend your right to freely express your views. It's a shame that some use that free speech to denegrate those that would willingly risk their lives to protect those precious freedoms.
5:25 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
don't try and red herring us with the actions of a few on the fringe. i'm not attacking the pentagon because we have some wackos on the right who think bombs will fix everything. that's not what i wrote about, and that's not what the debate in this country is about. those at edges will always be there, and they represent themselves and about 1-3% of the people in this country.
the general, i believe, was thinking of people like me who just flat-out disagree with the fact we went to war in the first place and have been trying to get it shut down ever since.
5:26 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
mp, congrats on the daily double: hiding your identity & name-calling. wear it with pride, dude.
Jul 5, '09
Who put a turd in your punchbowl TA? I must admit to being at a loss for words. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Jul 5, '09
I think the fringes, left and right, are quite a bit larger than the 1-3% but that's irrelivent to this discussion. As for trying to red herring somebody, that's not my intent, I'm merely trying to share a point of view. I have plenty of friends that agree and disagree with many aspects of the war. I respect the views of those that dissent even if I vehemently disagree. But there is a very big difference between dissent and actively seeking to undermine the morale and support for troops deployed in harms way. This also provides the other edge of the sword to those that they are engaged in combat operations with overseas; be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines or over a dozen other locations worldwide. Despite our differences sir may God keep your son safe and return him home. And may you find comfort in his safe return. Maybe that's one thing we can agree on.
6:45 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
I also support goverment help for the genuine needy and many of the progams that deliver basic services.
Admitedly, I've limited my observations to your writing here. Since I've never seen your comments demonstrate your regard for the less fortunate, I should be excused for my characterization of your viewpoints.
If you have been commenting here on Blue Oregon about anything other than WasteFraudAndAbuse perpetrated by fuzzy headed Libruls, I haven't seen it.
IF you want to offer some links in support of your argument, I stand ready to apologize for my "false" portayal of your views.
Jul 5, '09
TA Barnhart says: There is simply no call for a military leader to be stating that many of his fellow countrymen and women don't understand or get what patriotism is simply because they don't agree with him. His job is to train soldiers for war; he did that, and so his last task should have been to congratulate them and then shut the hell up.
I will agree with TA's comment above - Bednarek was out of line. If he wants to make political (or even politically-tinged) statements from an official platform, he needs to resign from the military and run for public office.
7:30 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
SFC USA (Ret)
The effigy burning at the 2007 Iraq invasion anniversary protest, rally and march was done by one guy assisted by one or two others. They were part of a loose grouping of perhaps 40 people who actively defended their actions. They were confronted and opposed at the time over the political message by members of Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out taking part in the march, groups that are much more central to the Portland and Oregon anti-war movements than those supporting the effigy burner. They were also confronted by a march peacekeeper for lighting a fire in a crowd.
KATU said there were "thousands" of demonstrators, Willamette Week said 15,000, apparently accepting organizers' high estmate, cited as such by KGW; 5000 would be a quite low estimate (I was there). (The march was reported to take 45 minutes to pass a given point by KATU -- it filled the streets from side to side. If you call it 10 abreast and 2 seconds to pass the point that's 300 per minute times 45 gets you close to the 15,000, call it half that for variable density and speed for a conservative estimate.)
The effigy burners were far less then 1/10 of 1% of the march, the group with "fuck the troops" banners less than 1% and probably less than 1/2 of 1%. Their message was neither typical of nor supported by a huge, overwhelming majority of the demonstrators.
8:24 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
The illegal aggression against Iraq, the questionable invasion of Afghanistan and the occupations of those two countries have done absolutely nothing to defend my right of free speech or anyone else's, nor any other civil rights and liberties.
One the contrary, they have been the occasion for massive assault by the executive branch, with the acquiescence or active complicity of most of the legislative branch of both major parties, on freedom of speech, on habeas corpus, on security from unreasonable searches and seizures, including mass scale illegal spying on the citizenry, in the name of defense against "terrorism."
In Minnesota, a Democratic DA with gubernatorial ambitions charged 8 organizers of demonstrations at the 2008 Republican National Convention under the Minnesota Patriot Act with "conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism," the terrorism component of the charges raising maximum potential sentence from 5 to 7 & 1/2 years. The law like its national counterpart twists the definition of terrorism out of all common sense recognition. The terrorism portion of the charges were only dropped in April when the prosecutor realized it might create a political backlash in her primary campaign.
Further, the same pattern of constitutional violations of by the president and executive branch under spurious color of claims to military authority included orders to military and "security" services to conduct torture and use of tactics that violate laws of war protecting civilians. The lowest level of soldiers carrying out such orders in the most publicized cases have been made scapegoats, while commanders who gave the orders and military policy makers who approved the principles justifying the field commanders in ordering soldiers to disserve their country and break its laws went free, as did all parties in the many cases that did not receive widespread publicity.
Those policies and those orders placed frontline military personnel in a situation of conflicting duties (general duty to obey orders vs. specific duty to disobey illegal orders), orders which further served to make them dishonor themselves and their country if obeyed. Whatever the personal responsibility of the low-level personnel who obeyed the orders, the scapegoating of them and the whitewashing and impunity of responsibility of the commanders, right up to the top, is a massive breach of honor that dishonors the country.
If Jamais Vu and extramsg and anyone else want to take a pollyanna view of the general's speech, that these breaches were what he referred to, that's their prerogative, but really it is untenable to suppose he was urging that kind of critical view of the military system recently gone wrong upon them as the set out for a combat zone.
"War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne, 1915
(After the U.S. entered World War I, had Bourne lived to see it his freedom of speech as a pacificst would have been "protected by the military" in the form of jailing for sedition.)
9:18 p.m.
Jul 5, '09
Chris, I appreciate your indignant anger as much as anyone's but don't get so heated that broad sarcasms sail right over your head. Of course Bednarek wasn't referring to Bush & Cheney!
But neither did Bednarek have anything to do with the litany of abuses you just described. The man was thanking troops for their service; end of story. He's off to a war zone from where some under his command won't return; I'm willing to give him a little slack. I agree his terms that were unfortunately close in tone to the smear tactics of those who question anyone who questions the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and echo Palins' "real Americans" b.s. but I don't think that qualifies for an "F-you A-hole" response. T.A. is closer to this war than most of people are and gets heated against whoever is present. In his case, it's a little more understandable.
As long as were having polite disagreements; I think the war in Afghanistan was entirely justified by the ruling government's collusion in the attacks on NYC. If we aren't willing to respond to an attack like that we might as well pack it in. Unfortunately we have made a hash of that war so far, and are essentially starting our 2009 summer campaign from scratch, eight years later. The incompetent execution of the Afghan & Iraqi wars and the Republicans' decision to run cover for Bush instead of demanding accountability from him is the #1 reason Democrats now control the White House. Democrats need to be sure to hold Obama and Congress accountable for their conduct and conclusion in both wars (including a no tolerance position on fraud and incompetence.) The "War on Terror" is a myth--there are two wars, with two causes. The Afghan war was justified and necessary, despite it being used as a pretext to launch that other fiasco.
Jul 5, '09
He's talking about you, douchebag.
Jul 5, '09
He's talking about you, douchebag.
This brand of drive-by dumbassing is really uncalled for. This has been a rational discussion on the whole, don't be the verbal counterpart of the effigy burners.
Jul 6, '09
When you serve your country, you are deserving of honor. Whether you do it as a gardener, or secretary, or road paver,it doesn't matter. But if you serve your country and then expect a seat on some pulpit, then you are an ass.
Service in the military is honorable. However, it doesn't give you greater citizenship or honor than that of any other citizen who serves his or her community.
Jul 6, '09
Best wishes to your son.
But using your son's service as a "shield" to deflect criticism of your nutty point of view is a little shameless. The general was spot on. Too bad you took a generalization he was making a little to personal. It shows that deep down you have an internal conflict with yourself. I can't see it any other way. Have a nice day.
7:01 a.m.
Jul 6, '09
this country has a long history of generals speaking their mind -- ie, going political. it's never been a good thing. we know what happens when the military decides politics is their baliwick: a breakdown of constitutional order. thankfully, we also have a pretty history of out-of-line generals being put back in their place -- or fired.
and we have a perfectly acceptable history of military personnel leaving the service to become political. i have absolutely no trouble with that; it's the inappropriate mixing of the two that is wrong. if Gen Bednarek thinks the country is off-course or needs lessons in proper ideology he has the option of retiring and becoming a private citizen.
Jul 6, '09
Pat Ryan,
You silly guy.
My point was not that you don't perceive or cast my or boats viewpoint accurately.
It's that you concocted an irrational conservative viewpoint that doesn't exist anywhere.
So I guess you should admit your observations of conservative writing is limited and you've nothing to back up your mischarcterization of Republican regard for the less fortunate. I would excuse you but, like so many other blues, your misrepresentation was obviously deliberate.
The idea that some "links" would lead to your apologizing is a hoot.
I'm supposed to prove my viewpoint is contrary to the one you fabricated? Special?
Like I said up thread, you just make up an irrational conservative position in order to constrast it with your thoughtful progressive side.
That's why most of these conversations go no where. You're debating a boogeyman you made up instead of the real opposition.
8:29 a.m.
Jul 6, '09
Jamais Vu,
Oops. Sorry.
IMO T.A. is completely justified. General Bednarek could & should have given the message of support and encouragement to his troops without taking a gratuitous and baseless political swipe at opponents of the occupation of Iraq. T.A. probably is not the only family member of a soldier whose honor and patriotism he thereby attacked with no justification. The f-yous started with the general.
The real traducers of duty, honor and patriotism are not the opponents of the invasion and occupation, but its makers. As I said, I wouldn't expect him to raise those issues on such an occasion -- but indirectly General Bednarek did just that by politicizing the speech.
Regarding Afghanistan, when I said the war was debatable, I meant exactly that I see the force & reason of arguments such as yours, & the character of my disagreement is entirely different, more complex and less certain, to that of my disagreement with supporters of the Iraq invasion.
Jul 6, '09
"General Bednarek could & should have given the message of support and encouragement to his troops without taking a gratuitous and baseless political swipe at opponents of the occupation of Iraq."
Could and should have given the message of support and encouragement? Did you even read the article? I would suggest reading the entire article instead of letting T.A. paraphrase it for you. He indisputably did exactly that. He thanked and praised the soldiers for their selfless dedication and he even did it in multiple languages. Then you say he made a baseless political swipe. Give me a break. His main point which started this ridiculous blog was that there are too few American citizens willing to defend the very things that you take for granted. One thing is for sure. It's very encouraging to know that out of the 3,000 Oregon National Guardsmen, none of them are like you. Gen. Bednarek was spot on. Support our troops and God Bless America.
Jul 6, '09
"Duty, honor, country." Country comes in last for the career military officers who usually recite this slogan. They are way out of line when they stand in uniform and make political accusations, and ought to be reprimanded for violating our civilian control of the military.
I do make a distinction between those whose professional career choice is war and preparation for more war, and those who were drafted to do the dirty work or who at present join up for various reasons, often having to do with the state of the job market, and for various periods of time.
I'm thinking too of President Eisenhower's comment, which should be printed right on our currency, (paraphrase from memory) every war will astonish those who wanted it.
Jul 6, '09
Jamais Vu, until I have the personal right to go through every record of the Bush administration before 9/11, I will never cease to believe that it was an inside job. You show some indication that the Afghan government was involved. I've never seen that allegation before.
I would appreciate it if you would track down and read two books from the Naval Institute Press which definitely is not a left wing organization.
The first is about "black ops" in the Korean War and they brag about how they got the North Koreans to attack the south. The first one is reasonably reliable as far as I know. They lie about the pirates who captured a Danish medical supply ship ignoring the fact that the leader of the attack was a Dane who was an Nazi SS officer wanted for murder in three countries and who was quietly resettled in Laos as that country fell into our hell there.
The second in about the "black ops" in Vietnam where they brag about how they got the North Vietnamese to attack American destroyers when they were dropping off saboteurs in North Vietnam. The general who ran with Ross Perot in 1992, corroborates that there were no repeat no Vietnamese in action that night. A lot left out. The attack on the Ho chi minh trail during the Cambodian attack on the parrot's beak area. Latrine rumors said that American troops personally shot down a brigadier general's helicopter as they were trying to pull out east. Practically nothing on the 50 to 100,000 murders under the Phoenix operation. Total coverup of the fact that the rebellion in the south was started by a group of market women who were sick of "government" troops under Diem simply coming into their market and looting it. The communists covered this up to as to admit that they did not start and lead the "rebellion" could be slightly embarrassing. The last woman held in the Tiger cages was released somewhere between 1985 and 1990. The Ho Chi Minh trail episode and the market women can be corroborated by a book written by a Quaker woman about the sacrifices of the women of vietnam during the war. The only thing that I found her possibly wrong on was that she said that the North Vietnamese had returned the evacuated children to Hanoi when Nixon and Kissenger decided on the Christmas bombing. She said the parent's put the kids in the shelter and went outside and took it. A book published about some of the evacuated children and their "new families" when they return to Hanoi after being raised in the safest villages indicates only a few thousand had been returned before the murderers just decided to bomb Hanoi under Dick's theory "Madness and unexpected and personally harmful maneuvers throw your enemies off balance."
Re: persons demonstrating viciously. This area needs some serious research. In the 1966-1969 period, I demonstrated against the war in Oregon. There were growing numbers of out of control thugs. They were centered around a "real radical." They caused stuff to be shown on television that made a peaceful assembly of up to 40000 look like a total riot, when there only about 10 to 20 thugs. In 1977, I returned to the U of O and asked about the "real radical." He was working as a chemist at the Argonne national laboratories. Look up agent provocateur when you find a small out of control group of demonstrators.
Check their shoes, the cops and the Feebs always polish their shoes. A woman that I had an extended affair with over a long period taught me that one. She was deeply involved in the Berkeley organization. She filed for her FBI records when the Freedom of Information Act was passed and spent a large amount on suits to compel compliance. What no one but she knew was that she kept a journal of all of the meeting she attended and who said what. When she got her Feeb file, she matched it with their records. All of the sudden names started being redacted. She figured that at least 65 to 80 per cent of the Berkeley radical leaders were turned into government informers. The last time I saw her she had given up and was moving to Africa.
I wish her well, she was a true and faithful patriot.
Jul 6, '09
Pakistani opposition pol Imram Khan says no Pashtun has been involved in any (terrorist) action outside of either Afghanistan or Pakistan.
And, he says, Pakistan didn't have a (terrorist) problem prior to action against Waziristan and the Swat Valley.
Why are we bombing and otherwise fighting these people? Both the Pak and Afghan governments can work out peace treaties with the "Taliban"/Pashtun.
(If I had a car I'd make a sarcastic bumper sticker: Support Our Drones).
Maybe Pepe Escobar of the AsianTimes has the answer as to why the U.S. is there: his recent piece is entitled "Balochistan Is The Ultimate Prize" (fascinating reading it is).
The thesis is that the U.S. is there to protect construction & function of a natural gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan, and will utilize a strategic port as the terminus in the Pak province of Balochistan.
Also, Balochistan itself is rich in resources (possibly including oil).
This thesis seems less far-fetched than that of some vague plan to stamp out Islamist-Sunni fundamentalism.
Jul 6, '09
Barnhart, you are kind of an idiot. Your suggestion that Bednarek's words - that many people have forgotten what honor and patriotism means - are equivalent to not serving in the military, is completely erroneous. Bednarek was exactly right. I work in education, and believe me, there are TOO MANY Americans, young people especially, who have forgotten, or perhaps don't care to know, what it means to work hard and serve one's country. May I remind you of the mass consumerism path that brought our country into this severe recession? Hard work, duty, honor, and patriotism are critical. Those soldiers needed to hear Bednarek's words, and I was grateful for what he said. How dare you claim that MG Bednarek, a man who has also deployed and put his life on the life, assumes that people who don't agree with this war, or common day citizens, are worthless? You are good at misinterpreting and getting your undies in a wad. Personally Sir, I wonder if we should ask what bee went up YOUR ass. I'm proud of all of the teachers, contract civilians, construction workers, medical professionals, and blue collar workers we have that make up this country. And I am especially proud of soliders who deploy and put their lives on the line for my freedom. You're not the only one to be affected by this war, T.A. Being reminded by a general of the importance of duty, honor and patriotism ... I think we all need to hear that. Mostly, I thank leaders like Bednarek who train our soldiers to be ready for going into combat, and for thanking them as he did in his speech. Funny how the right to write a one-sided, obnoxious blog like yours is precisely one of the human rights that so many of us take for granted. Why don't you think of that, and go visit countries where that's not allowed?
Jul 6, '09
First of all, it was not a General that ran with Perot, it was a Navy Admiral, and he was in a POW camp for 7 years. Secondly, sir, it sounds as if you have a relationship issue with your son, and that is your problem. However, if you think MG Bednarek who has spent weeks and weeks away from his own family to make sure these soldiers are properly trained should have stood up there and simply said 'Good job, Good luck' without telling them how proud he was and how proud the entire nation is for their service,well...let's just say I can see why you would have some relationship issues in your life. May I remind you sir, that it doesn't matter who got us into this war, our military has a committment to the nation, no matter what that committment may be. May I also remind you that this is an 'all volunteer' Army, and the last time I checked there was no draft. With that being said, our military makes up only 1% of our nations population. MG Bednarek has deployed and has seen many things that you could never even fathom. He's going to make these soldiers understand how much all of America appreciates them - because no one else will do that. He has attended more Memorial Services than you can count, and he has had to look at families in the eye and tell them how sorry he is. Do you honestly think these families only want to hear him say 'Hey, good job...'
Sir, no one likes war, but this is not a very nice world we live in, and we seem to forget this when we sit in our nice, comfortable coffee shops watching the latest football game. No, we cannot be the 'watchdogs' for the world, but we also cannot turn our heads when innocent people are being gassed, and shot at the nod of a head. I suggest you take a trip to Iraq and see how our Army engineers are building everything from schools, to water purifiers. Or how are Army medical staff treat thousands and thousands of people who otherwise might never be seen by a medical professional.
Today's soldiers are smart, educated, physically fit young men and women who are deserving of being told they are patriotic, brave, unique, strong and any other words that will help them be filled with pride and walk off the field with a smile on their face because somebody gives a damn.
Sir, I happened to hear a woman come up to MG Bednarek immediately after the ceremony, and she also had a son in the ranks. She told him that she was also in the Reserves, and she got out because she felt as if the top brass didn't give a damn. She also told him that if she had heard a speech like that from a General Officer, she would have stayed in. Enjoy your coffee sir.
Robert B.
7:20 p.m.
Jul 6, '09
Anne B (signed by Robert B?) - what the hell did i say about Perot? i wasn't even thinking about Adm Stockwell, jeez.
you make so many accusations about me, it's rather stunning. and you know nothing about me. nothing. it's just flat-out embarrassing to read such arrogance nonsense. why don't you stick to talking about what you actually do know, not speculations and blather.
Jul 7, '09
Good Morning Mr. Barnhart Best luck to your son on his deployment, seems like you already forgot what a patriotism and respect to those who serve in the military, I wonder know what your son think about you calling a B.G. fool, someone who is your son leader. I wonder know how your son feels when he read your comments. Is this the kind of support you give him? Obviously you are expressing your feelings more than facts.
You should feel very lucky calling a General Fool, in some countries you will be in jail because of you comments. By that way, you should see a psychologist, obviously you need help.
Jul 7, '09
Patriotism is self defining. I don't pledge allegiance to the flag, therefore in some people's eyes I'm unpatriotic. It has this "under God" thing which goes against my reading of the Constitution, and stupid things like "pledges" are nothing more than a propaganda tool anyway.
I did take an oath 42 years ago.
My vow of obedience to the President of the United States, officers appointed over me and the UCMJ expired in 1973. The other part still pertains as far as I can tell because I never got a release from the government saying I didn't have to "support and defend the Constitution" anymore, so I guess I'm still officially a "patriot".
8:24 a.m.
Jul 7, '09
Not everything the military does protects my rights.
The invasion of Iraq did nothing to protect any American rights. On the contrary, it has threatened and weakened them.
It was not a good war, it was not a just war, it was not a necessary war, and it has become none of those things.
If the invasion had not happened, we would not be less secure today, we would be more secure.
To make that illegal war, those who launched it had to mislead and lie to the people of the U.S., including those in the military. They had to attack the dissidents who spoke up against it as unpatriotic and in not a few prominent authoritarian and anti-democratic quarters as seditious and treasonous.
General Bednarek joined that rhetoric (the less strident forms) and was wrong to do so.
The soldiers going to Iraq may be motivated by duty, honor and love of country. But they are not going to defend my freedom. They are going to try to clean up a mess made by dishonorable men and a few women who made an illegal, unnecessary war that made us less secure and less free.
8:30 a.m.
Jul 7, '09
What do you do when the truth about a bad mission has the potential to undermine morale and commitment to carrying out the mission?
Jul 8, '09
Something that amuses me is that most of the asshats in the Democratic Party which voted for the IWR, are still in charge today in Congress. No venal political sin is too heinous to have liberal voters shovel out their stables.
Jul 8, '09
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 1:26:11 PM
BTW, happy 63rd birthday to the bikini:
Debuted this date, 1946, in Paris by M. Reard, a French fashion designer.
Your subliminal logic is amazing...and spot on the subject.
A lot of this is "get on with life" vs "stop and realize we are major killers". The bikini is a wonderful symbol. Definitely in the "let's get on with it camp", it is named after the atoll the French used to carry out their nuclear experiments.
Would be funnier if Reard had designed the thong.
Jul 8, '09
Point of fact: with Congress stating that the CIA, DIA, etc. are materially lying to Congress, at will, they are not OUR military. OUR military is overseen by the Congress.
We supposed to ignore that as well? Is any of "service narrative" that holds water?
So, is this administration telling them to lie, as well, or do they function autonomously? And what are you doing to find out? Waiting on Barry? What's he doing? Stepping up drone raids in Pakistan?
We've got this all backwards. Send the drones to Washington and the pols to Pakistan!
<hr/>