Washblog

I feel inspired by this story. Please keep us informed of any developments.

That Murray "smelled" these folks begs the question of how.  Does she really have that special power, or were they being disruptive during her speech?

I sympathize with your passion, and the passion and service of these war veterans, but I think some of the conclusions here sound a little more like projection, and less like objective observations of this event - which again, I can't really get a sense of by this account.

On The Road To 2008: Countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

Had I written this piece I would be making no claim to offering an objective report of a fund-raising event in Bellevue. Nor would I strive to convey in a school-marm dutifully self-suppressed tone about how events were seen and heard by the home culture club of stiff prim and proper lords and ladies out for an evening of tea and crumpets.

If such an event were to be scheduled in my county promising a careful and attention-avoiding keynote speech by a U.S. Senator followed by a general allowed to only offer military-sounding platitudes and democratically (oh ... excuse me)politically-correct verbiage intended to avoid showing any party official or candidate in a bad light - I'd be bored just reading the flyer.

I go to fund raisers with the idea that if the speakers can't light my fire, they don't get my money and quite probably won't get my vote.

If the Senator isn't interested in lighting my fire then she'd be better off asking a genuine firebrand to keynote.

And if David's description is even close to accurate, that introducer who wants to be elected might just one day attempt to shush the wrong person and blow her own election all by herself.

I recall our meeting in 2006 with Senator Cantwell which we attended despite the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth objections from our own Pacific County party members as well as the defensive terror of devout Washington State Democrats on Blogs.

In that interview, Maria was cool, calm, collected, objective and totally unable to convince anyone else in the room but her own aides that she was genuinely angry, upset or concerned;

about how we got into Iraq,

about how her constituency might look askance at her vote to support the war,

about how we might fail to understand her lack of gut fire and willingness to make an overdue change of course.

I'm certain Sheriff Reichert would have even more forcefully told young Josh to button his lip.

I've seen this sort of thing with politicians up close. I even tried to tackle one in genuine verbal combat recently. But agree with him or not, U.S. Rep Brian B. would have known what to do with a fired up Iraq veteran who literally WAS the skin in the game; a veteran who had every right to raise a ruckus if he perceived indifference or bland emotion in an elected official talking about HIS war.

In Raymond, I saw a Vet my own age take Brian to task in an openly disrespectful manner way beyond what David describes in his article here.

Baird's performance was genuinely poised and effective. The Vet was allowed to express his outrageously mean-spirited opinion and get away with it.

Right or wrong on Iraq, Brian profited by how he handled it and let the man have his say.

No one's darling even needed to try to shut him up.

Baird's was a big-time demonstration of how to think on one's feet wisely.

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

After all the abuse that soldiers and their families are going through -- from the regular enlisteds following orders, losing their lives, limbs, and peace of mind in this occupation ...  to those who speak out -- being ignored, villified, this account really lifted my spirits.

We are in an insane situation where those who fight in this occupation and those who have family serving, who have lost family, can speak up only when they are "behaving".  They seem to be squeezed between two sides.  The Bush-ites censor anyone who disagrees with their agenda.  Many of the Democrats, it seems, are so fearful of being labeled peace activists or unpatriotic, so fearful of being associated with the fringe -- that they are abandoning those they should listen to.

As for Darcy Burner, I do see how this was an awkward situation to be on your toes for.  If she wasn't told in advance who these people were, maybe she was taken by surprise.  

It would be good to hear from her and Patty Murray on this.  

These events exist to raise money for local democratic districts and the success of this event from year to year has much to do with the gradual election of democrats on the East side of the lake in King County. Events like these are based on the goal of making the attendees feel good and inspired to go out and work hard. Attracting elected leaders involves consistent delivery of a safe environment for them to deliver their chosen message.

So while I am sure their were a large number of folks in the room who are opposed to this war and frustrated with the House and Senates lack of majority support for forcing a real change of direction, I expect that a substantial majority of these same folks wished to set this aside in favor of decorum. This event for many is an annual chance to reconnect with those they have worked with over the years. The feeling is generally festive and fun.

So while the event was not a public forum and most would favor a brief time out when it comes to exerting pressure on honored guests, I do not think your fellow activists were too far out of line. Desperate times, after all, call for desperate measures. But, it is a bit much to be offended that the guests and master of ceremonies should have tabled the messages they came to express and allowed the evening to evolve from one which stressed opposition to the war into one which stressed disappointment in the Senator Murray.

On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama

How the Military Can Stop an Iran Attack

By Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith

10/11/07 "The Nation" -- -- Sometimes history--and necessity--make strange bedfellows. The German general staff transported Lenin to Russia to lead a revolution. Union-buster Ronald Reagan played godfather to the birth of the Polish Solidarity union. Equally strange--but perhaps equally necessary--is the addressee of a new appeal signed by Daniel Ellsberg, Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and many other leaders of the American peace movement:
"ATTENTION: Joint Chiefs of Staff and all U.S. Military Personnel: Do not attack Iran."

The initiative responds to the growing calls for an attack on Iran from the likes of Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton, and the reports of growing war momentum in Washington by reporters like Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker and Joe Klein of Time. International lawyer Scott Horton says European diplomats at the recent United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York "believe that the United States will launch an air war on Iran, and that it will occur within the next six to eight months." He puts the likelihood of conflict at 70 percent.

... Marcy Winograd, president of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, who originally suggested the petition, told The Nation:

"If we thought that our lawmakers would restrain the Bush Administration from further endangering Americans and the rest of the world, we would concentrate solely on them."

Because our soldiers know the horrors of war--severed limbs, blindness, brain injury--they are loath to romanticize the battlefield or glorify expansion of the Iraq genocide that has left a million Iraqis dead and millions others exiled.

Military Resistance

What could be stranger than a group of peace activists petitioning the military to stop a war? And yet there is more logic here than meets the eye.

Asked in an online discussion September 27 whether the Bush Administration will launch a war against Iran, Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest replied,

"Frankly, I think the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions."

She acknowledged that she had indulged in a bit of hyperbole, then added, "but not much."

There have been many other hints of military disaffection from plans to attack Iran--indeed, military resistance may help explain why, despite years of rumors about Bush Administration intentions, such an attack has not yet occurred. A Pentagon consultant told Hersh more than a year ago, "There is a war about the war going on inside the building."

... In an article published by Inter Press Service, historian and national security policy analyst Gareth Porter reported that Adm. William Fallon, Bush's then-nominee to head the Central Command (Centcom), sent the Defense Department a strongly worded message earlier this year opposing the plan to send a third carrier strike group into the Persian Gulf. In another Inter Press analysis, Porter quotes someone who met with Fallon saying an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch." He added,

"You know what choices I have. I'm a professional.... There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

Military officers in the field have frequently refuted Bush Administration claims about Iranian arms in Iraq and Afghanistan. Porter says that when a State Department official this June publicly accused Iran of giving arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US commander of NATO forces there twice denied the claim.

More recently, top brass have warned that the United States is not prepared for new wars. Gen. George Casey, the Army's top commander, recently made a highly unusual personal request for a House Armed Services Committee hearing in which he warned that

"we are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

While this could surely be interpreted as a call for more troops and resources, it may simultaneously be a warning shot against adventures in Iran.

... The appeal for military personnel to resist an attack is primarily based on principle. It asserts that any pre-emptive US attack on Iran would be illegal under international law and a crime under US law. Such an attack would violate Article II, Section 4, of the UN Charter forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Since Iran has not attacked the United States, an attack against it without authorization by the Security Council would be a violation of international law.

Under the US Constitution and the UN Charter, this is the law of the land. Under the military's own laws, armed forces have an obligation to refuse orders that violate US law and the Constitution.

And under the principles established by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal after World War II, "just obeying orders" is no defense for officials who participate in war crimes.

But the petition also addresses some of the practical concerns that have clearly motivated military officers to oppose an attack on Iran. It would open US soldiers in Iraq to decimation by Iranian forces or their Iraqi allies. It would sow the seeds of hatred for generations. Like the attack on Iraq, it would create more enemies, promote terrorism and make American families less safe.

The petitioners recognize the potential risks of such action to military personnel. "If you heed our call and disobey an illegal order you could be falsely charged with crimes including treason. You could be falsely court martialed. You could be imprisoned."

But they also accept risks themselves, aware that "in violation of our First Amendment rights, we could be charged under remaining section of the unconstitutional Espionage Act or other unconstitutional statute, and that we could be fined, imprisoned, or barred from government employment."

In ordinary times, peace activists would hardly be likely to turn to the military as allies. Indeed, they would rightfully be wary of military officers acting on their own, rather than those of their civilian superiors--in violation of the Constitution's provisions for civilian oversight of the military. But these are hardly ordinary times. While the public is highly dubious of getting into another war in the Middle East, there now appear to be virtually no institutional barriers to doing so.

Military-Civilian Alliance

Is there a basis for cooperation between the military brass and citizens who believe an attack on Iran would be criminal and/or suicidal? Perhaps.

The brass can go public with the truth and ask Congress to provide a platform for explaining the real consequences of an attack on Iran. The peace movement has already forged an alliance with Iraq War veterans who oppose the war and with high military officials who oppose torture; a tacit alliance with the brass to halt an attack on Iran is a logical next step.

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

Paul Eaton will be speaking at our Northwest Progressive Convention Saturday November 1oth, and Darcy Burner will be there thay day as well.  I would love it if these three guys and more vets from Iraq would come and speak forcefully again.  The more opposition these phony Democrats hear from the people, the more likely they will be to do the right thing.

Check out all the details at www.americasolidarity.org

Peace!