Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Remembrances

Congress didn't act then, doesn't act now; History Lesson - Bonus Army - 1932

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 11:45:35 AM PST
Section: Washington State Topic: Legislative performance

Bonus Army March on Washington DC in 1932 provides us with a model that has seemingly gone unchanged in how Congress responds to our military veterans, and the intensity by which veterans and civilians have to 'demonstrate' to get the attention of Congress - no not just get the attention, but enough attention that causes Congress to finally take action.    

A history lesson. Last night, on PBS station, was airing of a show about the 20,000 Bonus Army veterans of World War 1,along with their families, and other affiliated groups in their march on Washington DC, their encampment in Washington DC during the spring and summer of 1932, and the resulting riot that ensued to break up the encampment.  Congress continued to vote no to keeping a promise they had already made and given to these WW 1 veterans. Perseverance and persistence, on the part of the veterans, families and supporters and finally Congress said Yes to keeping their promise. What happened in between with Congress saying No to Congress saying Yes is not a pretty American tale, but indeed, part of American history.  

1932 - World War 1 and all the wars that followed up to the present in 2007 - why do our veterans have to fight Congress as well as fight in the battlefields?  It seems this is the 'norm', not the exception.  

In 1924 promise was made via Adjusted Service Certificate Law giving to WW1 veterans "bonus" certificates the following year that would be redeemable for cash after a maturation period of 20 years - payable in 1945.

June 17, 1932 and Congress was to vote on the Patman Bonus Bill, which would have moved forward the date when World War I veterans received a cash bonus. The 'Bonus Army' massed on DC, in hopes of convincing Congress to grant payments immediately, providing relief for the marchers/protestors who were unemployed. It was the era of the Great Depression, and veterans who already served found themselves in the food lines, without means to provide for their families, and were reduced from proud returning warriors to street beggars and bums (note; use of those words street beggars and bums reflects the social thinking of that era, not my definitions for how I think of the veterans of that era).  Not a pretty sight then for veterans, and doesn't it bring up recent history of Vietnam-era veterans who are homeless, living in the streets in reduced life circumstances?

Why is it no surprise that Congress defeated the bill July 28, and offered the pittance of paying the veteran demonstrators way home?  Some accepted and went home; others did not and remained. The Washington Police moved in to disperse the encampment, and two veterans were fatally shot in the process. The veterans hit back with blunt instruments, and the Washington Police backed off telling then President Hoover that they could not maintain the peace.

President Hoover ordered in federal troops to remove the veteran protesters.   Noted Generals, General Douglas MacArthur with Dwight D. Eisenhower as part of his staff,  and General George S. Patton were in command of the removal.  Troops carrying rifles, unsheathed bayonets and tear gas were sent in.    Hundreds of veterans were injured, several killed.  It's not hard to imagine the impact on the public of a visual of  U.S. armed soldiers confronting poverty-stricken veterans from what was then in American history the recent Great War.  (note; jumping forward in hisotry, we've seen this image again in Vietnam war protests).  It did set the stage and we do have these protesting WW 1 veterans to thank for what would become Veteran relief and eventually the Veterans Administration, making benefits of medical, home loans, and college tuition available to the next generation of veterans.

(Side note) And these benefits, I'm afraid, are on the serious decline as this Administration cites budget constraints while asking for budget supplemental appropriation to feed troop increases and keeping the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

In the battle against it's own veterans to clear the encampments, burning down the tents and shacks, by the end a list of casualties looked like this:

    - Two veterans were shot and killed.
    - An 11 week old baby was in critical condition resulting from shock from gas exposure.
    - Two infants died from gas asphyxiation.
    - An 11 year old boy was partially blinded by tear gas.
    - One bystander was shot in the shoulder.
    - One veteran's ear was severed by a Cavalry saber.
    - One veteran was stabbed in the hip with a bayonet.
    - At least twelve police were injured by the veterans.
    - Over 1,000 men, women, and children were exposed to the tear gas, including police, reporters, residents of Washington D.C., and ambulance drivers.

 President Hoover was not re-elected, and a new President in Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected. After his 1933 Inauguration, some of the veterans regrouped to make their case to the new President.  He did not want to pay the bonus either, and his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt engaged the veterans encouraging many of them to sign up for jobs making roadways at the Florida Keys.

In the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 in Florida, 259 of these veterans were killed at their worksites on the highway.  Public sentiment in reaction to seeing  newsreels of veterans giving their lives for a government that had taken them for granted, is what persuaded Congress they could no longer afford to ignore it in an election year (1936). Roosevelt's veto was overridden, and the veterans received their bonus.

 NPR Soldier Against Soldier; The Story of the Bonus Army with vintage newsreel.

I will mention 'Vietnam' without getting into another history lesson - a decade of sending our young into combat in an un-necessary war, 58,000 names of the dead on Vietnam Wall in Washington DC; millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians killed - oh yes, if you didn't know it to be true, U.S. troops were ordered by the Nixon Administration into Cambodia and Laos - it wasn't limited to Vietnam. The Nixon Administration also ordered the military use of weapons of mass destruction in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos without much regard to the troops or non-combatant civilians.  What did it take to get Congress to act in this history lesson?  

Today, then, in 2007, in the matter of four years of U.S. military deployed in occupation of Iraq, despite four years of mounted protests by hundreds of thousands in cities across the United States, in Washington DC - what is it going to take to affect Congress to action instead of using just empty words as they jocky for political position?  Despite the efforts of veterans - over 1,300 Iraq veterans signed the Appeal for Redress that was delivered to Congress in January 2007 - Lt. Ehren Watada's efforts by his refusal to deploy to put the Iraq war on trial in accord with U.S. compliance with Geneva Conventions - the poll which indicated that 70% of deployed troops polled believe they should come home -----   what is going to take to get Congress to listen and act?  

No, that is not a rant or a hopeless question.  The history dating back to the Bonus Army, and the wars in which the U.S. military has been deployed since clearly show a more than casual disregard for the military and veterans over a 65 year period.  That is more than happenstance - that is a pattern of behavior on the part of Congress.  And I only went back to 1932, choosing the Bonus Army as a starting place.  

Is it any wonder that there is almost now by rote an action = U.S. military deployed into questionable wars with reaction = U.S. public must battle Congress to see the error it it's ways via repeated and accelerated protest demonstrations before Congress will act?  Is this the norm in our country - this land of freedom?  Freedom of what, I ask myself sometimes - freedom to send our young off in repeated historical wars to be killed and maimed and scarred for life and with just a thank you Sir and then are as quickly as one clicks the remote to change the tv channel the 'new veterans' are forgotten? Freedom to maintain freedom by sending our young repeatedly generation after generation to war?  I have to wonder when freedom isn't freedom but an act of an extreme kind of  selfishness.  Why is it that only our country deserves the largess?

No, I don't want to move to another country and I'm sure many would be happy to invite that opportunity if I am so dis-satisfied with my own country.  And no, I don't want to live under a dictatorship or other forms of government that are oppressive in nature.  Besides, I've had a husband and now a son-in-law and nephew pay my price of freedom and freedom to speak since they have been in combat over two wars - Vietnam and Iraq. Oh, and my nephew was also in Bosnia - you remember Bosnia?  Clinton years?

But, just because we, in this country, have some mythical definitions of what it is to be a democracy and those definitions are bathed and perfumed in nostalgic and patriotic dressing, doesn't mean we should accept that as the satisfactory bar or standard of what it means to be a democracy.  We should strive for better, yes, and we should re-examine our definitions and we should, perhaps improve on those definitions, and we should stop sending our young generations to be killed in the name of democracy and freedom, or at the very least get a clearer sense of what constitutes a 'threat' and imminent danger to our country. .

Quoting President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who witnessed and participated in routing out the Bonus Army - U.S. troops against U.S. veterans:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

 

  Don't think for a moment, that our Congress today, our Administration today does not well know the lessons of history.  Which is exactly why Congress refusing to act against an Administration who refuses to listen to the advice and warnings of his war experts is beyond deplorable as static energy - moving neither forward or backward,  perpetuating more of the same by doing nothing different. When did 'stay the course' become a patriotic nomenclature?  How is that bravery or wisdom in the face of foolishness?  

I truly do not wish to see the two in our family go back to Iraq this year - they returned alive, not necessarily well, but alive from their first 15 month deployment in 2003-2004.  Believe me, none in our family will consider it a noble sacrifice for them to go back, and their deaths will not honor them or us, rather it will be remembered that this Administration and Congress in concert did, in fact, exploit and dishonor our brave young service men and women.    

Topic: Civic Duty

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Members Speak Out

Seven (7) WA based soldiers killed in Iraq so far Jan 2007 - how many more?

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Tue Feb 06, 2007 at 11:24:56 AM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Legislative performance

Now Playing: Arthur Ruger
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada
I've written previously about the antics of civilian leadership when it deliberately ignores or downplays the horrific consequences of war, bombing campaigns and torture, justifying an evil  by something other than literal defense of the homeland. This is a reflection of legitimate moral blindness that puts military families at a disproportionate amount of risk in this country.

We have let them get away with it.

In the face of our obsession with Super Bowls, car races, idols, survivors and celebrity dancers we see revealed a tragic flaw in our civilian society.

This in a nation established and sustained by military will, strength and courage.

The history of our revolution, our Civil War and the World Wars does not reflect a nation primarily ignorant of this nation's foreign and domestic affairs. Back then the country was not dominated by consumers sitting around playing games, pursuing entertainment and dabbling in pursuits of fame and fortune all the while waiting for a president to tell them what to do and why.

They were not dependent solely on the president to tell them that it was time to start paying attention and what they should focus on.

They were more aware back then of the real global situation. They were willing to join up or send their sons and daughters, trusting that their President was both honest and wise in commanding as chief.

Not this time in this age of America.

The recent Citizen's Tribunal in Tacoma - among other things - was a public effort at showcasing many of the legitimate arguments supporting the illegality of the war.

The military, which of itself doesn't make the decision to invade and occupy, nor initiate shock and awe without being ordered to do so, must build a case against Watada that establishes or justifies the "harm" of his words and actions.

It's in the Army's best interest to portray Watada's actions not only as violations of the UCMJ, but patriotically unacceptable because of a possible "harm" to troop discipline and morale; supposedly impacting the effectiveness of troops already serving in harm's way.

When the Watada Court Martial commences, are we likely to see prosecution attempt to justify its position by calling on families, wives and children of active duty personnel in Iraq to testify about Ehren`s negative impact on troop morale as well as the morale of military families?

You bet we are and there`s nothing unfair about that as a legal tactic.

The recent Tribunal either attempted and failed or more likely chose not to bring in rebuttal testimony and I'm not faulting them for that. The Panel Chairperson announced early on that the Tribunal made no claims to impartiality, only to truth. The panel then proceeded toward truth with a view unrestricted by procedural concerns, equal time or rebuttals.

But at the Court Martial, if we see families testifying as to how harmful the Lt's actions are, what do we do with that point of view?

It's one thing to be part of an activist group, crowd or mob where the choir dominates, speeches run to redundancy and spontaneity of action usually results in mighty roars of approval.

It's another to speak amidst a crowd or to an audience wherein mixed perspectives and priorities are present. Roars of approval then compete with disapproving shouts. For activists seeking chain reactions and stampedes the thrill is not the same.

My point with this is to examine ultimately what Lt. Watada and those bearing the grandest scale perspectives think they are after with Ehren.

Based on his own statements, I'm assuming that Lt. Watada hopes to start a cascade of feelings that generate thoughts that lead to words and finally actions that stop the war, end the killing and bring the crimes to a halt.

That's a reasonable message to send to military families, not some sort of "free Watada from the brig" civil disobedience that elevates one individual beyond that which he himself desires or to an undue level of importance at the expense of something greater.

Lietta and I, as members of Military Families Speak Out, do not desire divisiveness with any other military families over a  Watada-deserves-punishment versus Watada-deserves-freedom issue.

Watada himself is not the point.  

Although I make no comparison between Watada and Jesus, I see in some activists an insistance that support for Watada is more important that what Watada is talking about.

And that attitude is not unlike contemporary Evangelical Christianity and its excessive focus on Jesus himself rather than the philosophy and God Jesus pointed to as a means of making humanity more humane, less cruel, less judgmental, less self-interested and less violent.

In my opinion, citizens in this country must take ownership and responsibility for the actions carried out in our names. We do not let anyone irresponsibly and without accountablility send our children out to fight. We do not expect our children to serve this country with no sense of ethics simply because the ethical and moral sense has been assigned to higher authorities.

What we want of all military families is a projection - into the lives of their loved ones who serve - the safety AND moral issues connected with the purpose of service right now in Iraq.

We don't want a military wife to tell us what's right or wrong about Watada.

We do ask that a military wife focus on her husband and the situational and moral quagmire he is in; that he's stuck in his current venue because no one to date has challenged the legality of the orders given him nor the ultimate unwise and unethical civilian source.

We don't excuse our soldiers for ethical and moral lapses because authorities placed in positions of appointed power have - with self-preserving hypocrisy - labeled offenders as some few "bad apples," who deserve no further close scrutiny and need to be locked up, the key thrown away.

We should not tolerate civilian administrators pleading innocence because of the vast gap between the highest echelons of authority and the lowest front line chain of command;

 

a front line where sergeants can be punished because a corporal suffered from the same moral blindness as those self-serving civilians on Mount The invasion that became a military occupation has deteriorated to an on-going action carried on in the name of staying on a course that has been revealed as illegal, immoral and destructive of the innocent.

 

• staying a false course that deliberately destroys more innocent victims than it does terrorists

   

• because we were lied to by a dishonest leadership  that now declares that ending the illegal aggression would be "cutting and running."

   

This lack of moral responsibility pervades the current administration which is now seated at the steering wheel;

- villainous fools who are passing judgment on the moral fiber of anyone who disagrees, thereby labeling dissent as treason.

Our soldiers absolutely must emerge from basic and combat training with moral competence intact.

I hope that stories of institutionalized programming of racial hatred, bigotry, stereotyping and name-calling are not predominantly a part of teaching warriors a moral and ethical code. If the testimony and stories reflect what is happeneing across the board, I again declare here and now that the military training organizations are not doing it in my name nor on behalf of my family.

I repudiate these training tactics based on moral recklessness.

We hopefully raise our children with the expectation that they will become independent and self-reliant adults.

If my son or daughter joins the military and enters into its initiations, I am not being unreasonable in expecting that this current  military establishment reclaims its own sense of ethical and moral responsibility from the immorality of a corrupt president and his party.

I expect that sense to coincide with that which we as parents have endeavored to plant in our children's hearts.

I expect that all military families are not unreasonable in such an expectation before they decide to say who is patriotic and who isn't.

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Politicians in Action

Congressman Capuano to Vote No Supplemental Appropriations Iraq war. Will WA Congressionals vote No?

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:14:14 AM PST
Section: Stories In Progress Topic: Legislative performance  

"I fully expect to vote no on the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding the war in Iraq and I will do everything in my power to prevent an escalation of troops. We have lost far too many lives already." Congressman Michael E. Capuano (D) Massachusetts.

Imploring U.S. Representatives - WA state to vote likewise and support your colleague, U.S. Congressman Michael Capuano, in voting No on upcoming supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding the war in Iraq.

Representatives Click on names to get to Web mail form McMorris, Cathy(R) - 5th District McDermott, Jim (D) - 7th District Smith, Adam (D) - 9th District Inslee, Jay (D) - 1st District Dicks, Norm (D) - 6th District Larsen, Rick (D) - 2nd District Baird, Brian (D) - 3rd District Hastings, Doc (R) - 4th District Reichert, Dave (R) - 8th District

Senators U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, please vote in solidarity - vote no to supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding the war in Iraq. Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA) (202) 224-3441 Murray, Patty- (D - WA) (202) 224-2621

Our Military Family Speak Out (MFSO - www.mfso.org) families continue to engage U.S. Congress one on one showing the 'reasoning' as to why it is imperative to vote no on the supplemental appropriations to continue to fund the war.  Military families would not willingly  ask for legislation that would further endanger their deployed loved ones lives, and are assured there is adequate funding at this time to undertake the redeployment process to bring the troops home now.  

This is not a banner slogan or chant, but a most serious imploring Congress to act within the power imbued by the voters upon each of our U.S. Senators and Representatives to act using the power of the purse.

Understanding the serious nature of the job of Congress, we ask for a humane end to the unmitigable circumstances for our troops of what is now identified by latest Intelligence report issued this week as a   Civil War of the factions in Iraq. U.S. troops presence there can neither help nor hinder the deteriorated circumstances of Iraq.  Prospects in Iraq, based on this latest intellignece, are described equally as horrible consequences whether our troops remain or come home.  

An email I received late this week (text below) includes a letter received by one of our MFSO staff from Congressman Michael E. Capuano.  We applaud his courage and ask it of those representing Washington state in Congress.

Please help us by asking each of our U.S. Representatives and Senators to exercise the courage to say no more and vote no on supplemental appropriations.  

text of Congressman Capuano's letter to MFSO staffer:

   

  January 9, 2007

    Dear Friends,

    Thank you for your concern over what is clearly one of the most critical issues facing our nation today. As some of you may know, I have been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning. I opposed the October 2002 Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq and I continue to speak out against the war at all opportunities.

    I am deeply opposed to the President's proposal to increase troop levels in Iraq and I will not support any efforts to move in this direction. I believe that this is exactly the wrong way to go and I have discussed my adamant opposition with many of my colleagues, including Speaker Pelosi, who is also gravely concerned about any escalation in troops. In fact, Speaker Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, recently sent a letter to the President, opposing a surge in troops.

    I fully expect to vote no on the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding the war in Iraq and I will do everything in my power to prevent an escalation of troops. We have lost far too many lives already.

    I thank you for your activism and I hope that we can work together to end this war.

    Sincerely,

    Michael E. Capuano
    Member of Congress

.....While there are several recently-filed pieces of legislation that have provisions for cutting the funding for the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home, these measures if passed would be vetoed by President Bush, and there is no veto-proof margin. If the Supplemental Appropriations bill, on the other hand, is not passed by EITHER the House or the Senate, it will never land on the President's desk and can not be subject to a veto. If in the next several weeks Congress can be convinced to vote against further funding for the war in Iraq, this war can be brought to an end......

An anecdotal report of a military mother at U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Jan 30, 2007 imploring that her Marine son, broken by two deployments in Iraq, not be sent back for third deployment in Iraq.

* McMorris, Cathy(R) - 5th District
      Republican representative from Washington.
      www.mcmorris.house.gov
    * McDermott, Jim (D) - 7th District
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/mcdermott
    * Smith, Adam (D) - 9th District
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/adamsmith
    * Inslee, Jay (D) - 1st District
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/inslee
    * Dicks, Norm (D) - 6th District
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/dicks
    * Larsen, Rick (D) - 2nd District
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/larsen
    * Baird, Brian (D) - 3rd District, Washington
      Democratic representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/baird
    * Hastings, Doc (R) - 4th District
      Republican representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/hastings
    * Reichert, Dave (R) - 8th District
      Republican representative from Washington.
      www.house.gov/reichert

U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, please vote in solidarity - vote no to supplemental appropriations bill to continue funding the war in in Iraq.

Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)   
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3441
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Murray, Patty- (D - WA)    Class III
173 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-2621
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Now Playing: WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 -- Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall
Topic: Events

"When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home NOW"

By Arthur Ruger
Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:23:12 PM PST
Section: Stories In Progress Topic: Military
 

...said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress.

Today was a big day for the good guys in this country. We would like to have been there with them.

Commondreams.org has published the New York Times article about today's demonstrations.

 

Protest Focuses on Troop Increase for Iraq
by Ian Urbina

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27  --  Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the war began.

Nice beginning.

When Lietta was on the Bring Them Home Now Bus Tour that culminated with the mass demonstration in Washington D.C. in September, 2005, media and official estimates put the crowd at 200,000 - 300,000 people. In reality, the number was closer to 600,000.

At least today they are admitting to 400,000 for starters.

'BRING MY HUSBAND HOME NOW!' The unidentified wife of an Army Ranger serving in Iraq holds a sign near the U.S. Capitol during a protest against the war in Iraq Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007 in Washington.(AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

The event drew demonstrators from across the country, and many said that in addition to taking their discontent to the streets they planned to press members of Congress to oppose the war.

"When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home now," said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress.

So how many of those Americans described as supportive by the Bush/McCain/Lieberman propaganda team went to D.C. to counteract the effect of 400,000 rejections of a sitting president, his war-toady heir apparent and whistle-past-the-graveyard Holy Joe?

The article answers that question with its final paragraphs.

"Many intend to stay and press members of Congress to oppose the war."

Maybe they'll go after some of those Republican Senators hanging around waiting to drop more amendments on to the minimum wage bill

 

 

SURGING ON THE CAPITOL Marchers parade down Independence Ave. near the U.S. capitol during a protest against the war in Iraq Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007 in Washington.Organizers said that over 400,000 marched.(AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

"I grew up during the Vietnam War, but I never protested it and never had my lottery number called to go fight," said David Quinly, a 54-year-old carpenter from Prairie Village, Kan., who arrived here Friday night with about 50 others after a 23-hour bus ride.

"In my view, this one is a war of choice and a war for profit against a culture and people we don't understand," Mr. Quinly said. "I knew I had to speak up this time."

"I've got a son who just got out of the military and another still in," said Jackie Smith, 65, from Sunapee, N.H., whose sign read "Bush Bin Lyin." "And I'm here because this is all I can do to try to help them."

And there's a lot more of us baby-boomers - many of whom sat out the domestic fight in this country last time who flat out aren't going to make the same mistake twice ...not this time. Our kids deserve a hell of a lot more than tha!

 

Tassi McKee, from Bastrop, La., who said she was a staff sergeant in the Air Force, was among a small contingent of about 20 active-duty service members who turned out. "I believe this has become a civil war, and we are being hurt and making matters worse by staying in the middle of it," Sergeant McKee said.

She said that it was not illegal for active-duty members to attend protests but that it was strongly discouraged.

I suspect there are more Watada's out there just needing encouragement

 

Veterans were more numerous among the crowd.

Dressed in the olive green, military-issued flight jacket that he said he wore during the invasion of Iraq while serving as a Marine sergeant, Jack Teller, 26, said he joined a caravan from Greenville, N.C., because he felt that it was his duty.

"I don't like wearing the jacket because it reminds me that I participated in an immoral and illegal war," said Mr. Teller, who had "Iraq Veterans Against the War" stenciled on the back of his jacket. "But it's important to make a political statement."

Fernando Braga, a 24-year-old Bronx native who is a member of the Army National Guard, said that he was skeptical of the war before it started. Mr. Braga said his views hardened into opposition while he served in Iraq from March 2004 through January 2005.

"My own commander told us when we arrived that if we thought we were there for any reason other than oil then we had another think coming," he said. "I realized even commanding officers were against it but following orders."

How about some active duty opinions from the Ocupation in Iraq?

 

President Bush, who often spends weekends at Camp David, was in Washington on Saturday but had no public events scheduled. He spent part of the morning on his weekly bicycle ride at a Secret Service training facility in Beltsville, Md.

With nothing to say ... and only a White House spokesman to recognize the right of assembly, free speech and an appeal for redress ... all of which Mr. Bush pedallingly ignored. I'm betting he pedaled nowhere near anyone willing to carry out a citizen's arrest, eh?

 

Counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

"These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

Another counterprotester, Larry Stark, 71, a retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam for five years and was a prisoner of war, said, "We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protesters have their way."

The protesters on Saturday were undermining troop morale, Mr. Stark said, and increasing the likelihood of a premature withdrawal.

"It's like we never learn from the past," he said.

Another commentary on what happens when feelings run high enough to get people off their bottoms and into the streets to rally for both sides of an issue.

... and isn't that what freedom of speech and assembly is all about?

War opponents preparing for today's protest on the National Mall.
The shoes and names written on the box represent civilians killed in Iraq.
Stefan Zaklin/European Pressphoto Agency

 

Now Playing: WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 -- Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall
Topic: Events

"When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home NOW"

By Arthur Ruger
Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 08:23:12 PM PST
Section: Stories In Progress Topic: Military
 

...said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress.

Today was a big day for the good guys in this country. We would like to have been there with them.

Commondreams.org has published the New York Times article about today's demonstrations.

Protest Focuses on Troop Increase for Iraq

by Ian Urbina

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27  --  Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush's plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation's capital since the war began.

Nice beginning.

When Lietta was on the Bring Them Home Now Bus Tour that culminated with the mass demonstration in Washington D.C. in September, 2005, media and official estimates put the crowd at 200,000 - 300,000 people. In reality, the number was closer to 600,000.

At least today they are admitting to 400,000 for starters.

'BRING MY HUSBAND HOME NOW!' The unidentified wife of an Army Ranger serving in Iraq holds a sign near the U.S. Capitol during a protest against the war in Iraq Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007 in Washington.(AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

The event drew demonstrators from across the country, and many said that in addition to taking their discontent to the streets they planned to press members of Congress to oppose the war.

"When we voted it was a directive to bring our troops home now," said the Rev. Graylan S. Hagler of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in Washington, referring to the November elections when Democrats won control of Congress.

So how many of those Americans described as supportive by the Bush/McCain/Lieberman propaganda team went to D.C. to counteract the effect of 400,000 rejections of a sitting president, his war-toady heir apparent and whistle-past-the-graveyard Holy Joe?

The article answers that question with its final paragraphs.

"Many intend to stay and press members of Congress to oppose the war."

Maybe they'll go after some of those Republican Senators hanging around waiting to drop more amendments on to the minimum wage bill

 

 

SURGING ON THE CAPITOL Marchers parade down Independence Ave. near the U.S. capitol during a protest against the war in Iraq Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007 in Washington.Organizers said that over 400,000 marched.(AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

"I grew up during the Vietnam War, but I never protested it and never had my lottery number called to go fight," said David Quinly, a 54-year-old carpenter from Prairie Village, Kan., who arrived here Friday night with about 50 others after a 23-hour bus ride.

"In my view, this one is a war of choice and a war for profit against a culture and people we don't understand," Mr. Quinly said. "I knew I had to speak up this time."

"I've got a son who just got out of the military and another still in," said Jackie Smith, 65, from Sunapee, N.H., whose sign read "Bush Bin Lyin." "And I'm here because this is all I can do to try to help them."

And there's a lot more of us baby-boomers - many of whom sat out the domestic fight in this country last time who flat out aren't going to make the same mistake twice ...not this time. Our kids deserve a hell of a lot more than tha!

 

Tassi McKee, from Bastrop, La., who said she was a staff sergeant in the Air Force, was among a small contingent of about 20 active-duty service members who turned out. "I believe this has become a civil war, and we are being hurt and making matters worse by staying in the middle of it," Sergeant McKee said.

She said that it was not illegal for active-duty members to attend protests but that it was strongly discouraged.

I suspect there are more Watada's out there just needing encouragement

 

Veterans were more numerous among the crowd.

Dressed in the olive green, military-issued flight jacket that he said he wore during the invasion of Iraq while serving as a Marine sergeant, Jack Teller, 26, said he joined a caravan from Greenville, N.C., because he felt that it was his duty.

"I don't like wearing the jacket because it reminds me that I participated in an immoral and illegal war," said Mr. Teller, who had "Iraq Veterans Against the War" stenciled on the back of his jacket. "But it's important to make a political statement."

Fernando Braga, a 24-year-old Bronx native who is a member of the Army National Guard, said that he was skeptical of the war before it started. Mr. Braga said his views hardened into opposition while he served in Iraq from March 2004 through January 2005.

"My own commander told us when we arrived that if we thought we were there for any reason other than oil then we had another think coming," he said. "I realized even commanding officers were against it but following orders."

How about some active duty opinions from the Ocupation in Iraq?

 

President Bush, who often spends weekends at Camp David, was in Washington on Saturday but had no public events scheduled. He spent part of the morning on his weekly bicycle ride at a Secret Service training facility in Beltsville, Md.

With nothing to say ... and only a White House spokesman to recognize the right of assembly, free speech and an appeal for redress ... all of which Mr. Bush pedallingly ignored. I'm betting he pedaled nowhere near anyone willing to carry out a citizen's arrest, eh?

 

Counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

"These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

Another counterprotester, Larry Stark, 71, a retired Navy officer who fought in Vietnam for five years and was a prisoner of war, said, "We never lost a battle in Vietnam but we lost the war, and the same is going to be true in Iraq if these protesters have their way."

The protesters on Saturday were undermining troop morale, Mr. Stark said, and increasing the likelihood of a premature withdrawal.

"It's like we never learn from the past," he said.

Another commentary on what happens when feelings run high enough to get people off their bottoms and into the streets to rally for both sides of an issue.

... and isn't that what freedom of speech and assembly is all about?

Now Playing: Wsconsin Senator Russ Feingold
Topic: Politicians in Action

Topic: Events

Now Playing: Arthur Ruger
Topic: Civic Duty
Here's what we got away with this past weekend:

 

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Being married to an activist who can get things done has its positive perks which include sitting up front where I can hear and see stuff a lot more thoroughly. (And even for an old Veteran who thinks he's seen it all and knows everything, sitting up that close is no place to be caught falling asleep!)

Photo  of Lietta is mine

So I thought I'd get my notebook and write down what I expected would be a thought, concept or cool quote that might enter my ears once every ...  oh, say 45 minutes. I'd hear something I could use as a talking point or theme for long-winded articles or rants.

So ready to take notes, both feet on the floor and somewhat alert,  I started listening and then began to write.

When it was over the old callous on my writing finger was back, having regressed some 40 years ago.

I don't have a laptop, just a calloused writing finger and  36 pages of talking points.

I'll leaving the laptopping and live blogging to Noemi who ought to get some kind of blogging award from somebody who knows a good job when they read one.

So no, don't panic! I'm not going to write up 36 pages of talking points.

But I am going to start writing over the next few weeks about thoughts the came flying into  my awake old military-Veteran mind as I  sat protected by a document.

Thoughts:

What would a "Constitutional" model of citizenship look like?

Does a good citizen live in indifference to freedoms possessed by few and coveted by most who live on an entire planet?

Does a good citizen justifiably think that the pursuit of happiness includes mere patriotism of consuming American-made products, enjoying corporate sponsored shallow entertainment, going to work, giving up withheld taxes and living only for today?

Does a good citizen leave most of the important stuff to bigmouth politicians who talk down to an entire electorate that is far wiser that it itself realizes?

Does good citizenship stop at the door to a military recruiter's office?

Does a good citizen-soldier agree and commit to stop thinking and merely follow orders once a uniform is donned?

Hell yes!

 

•  Hell yes, I will go!
  
•  But don't tell me I can't think
  
•  Don't tell me I can't discern
  
•  and don't tell me I have to violate law and repudiate the Constitution to help some fool up my chain of command stay in the driver's seat.

   

Our assemby did not ask that question, but instead refused to wait for some sort of wise permission from any "higher authority" - elected or wannabe - that pretends to know more and understand more Civics than what we know and understand.

Our assembly waited for no one's endorsment.

 

• We gathered

   

• We deliberated

   

• We will be heard

   

• We will demand REAL American Constitutional justice for all!

   

We will ask, for example, of the Lieutenant's presiding Court Martial Judge,

if the illegality of the order to march out and kill is a concern included in the Consitution, why is it not relative to a thinking soldier's right?

By the way - to all fools who say "You signed on, you knew what you were doing, stop whining and get going!" - read an officer's oath.

That oath includes the primary and overarching vow to protect and obey the Constitution. Nowhere does an officer's oath -unlike an enlisted man's oath - include a vow to obey without question or assessment of orders from all superior officers.

So I'm already worked up but have to get going to work so I can earn more tax money to pay - among other things - other citizen soldiers to protect the rights of every other American citizen and their court marital presiders.

This then will start a series for me.

I'll close this morning with a quote from my distant relative, a much maligned (and deservedly so from my own reading of history) former president, but a highly admired, respected and effective military officer and commander of all American forces at the time. Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant's words in and of themselves, authorize any and all - past or present -  U.S. military  officers to think for themselves, even if they never run for president.

 

"one of the most unjust ever waged on a weaker country by a stronger." - On America's war against Mexico

Photo owner:thinkquest.org

More later ...