Washblog

   Thank you Arthur and Lietta.
   Also, please thank your son-in-law and nephew for their dedicated service to our country. You as absolutly correct that to few are willing to make such sacrifice. Their honor and yours are part of what still makes America.

Dave Gibney Pullman

by gibney on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 12:00:52 PM PST

---

I don't understand why there was ever a question of anyone else replacing us in Iraq.  I don't believe that was ever on the table or suggested.  The situations is, Iraq is now a mess.  It's in civil war.  IMO, if we left, it would help end the tensions that have created the civil war. In fact, British and U.S. special ops went in and stirred up the pot with the INTENT of creating a civil war for the very reason that they could create a mess to use as cover for our continued presence in Iraq.

How is our staying in Iraq "cleaning up the mess"?

And if we stay in Iraq, exactly HOW will we clean up the mess?

No.  Until we leave, it will REMAIN a mess.

by Pen on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:00:00 PM PST

---

But with all due respect to Baird, and granting that his intentions are well-meant, did anyone raise the most obvious question?

With Bush & Cheney in charge, the same fundamentally dishonest criminals who provoked this disaster, what is going to be fixed by allowing them to continue what they've been doing, with no accountability?

I don't mean to be flip, because this is deadly serious. But I've said before: if Dick Cheney shot me in the head, he's the last person I'd trust to be in charge of the brain surgery.

by dinazina on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 06:47:48 PM PST

---

Re the "clean up our own mess" argument.  It doesn't hold water. If you came over to my house and broke every dish in my cupboard and offered to stay around to clean up the mess, I'd tell you to write me a check to cover the damage plus interest and then get the hell off of my property.  That's what we owe Iraq--not our presence, but the money to clean up their own mess.

Think they can't do it?  They're already starting, and without our "help" thankyewverymuch. Our media naturally has no coverage of it, so we have to go international of course.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/04/europe/EU-GEN-Finland-Iraq-Talks.php

Sunni and Shiite delegates made unexpected progress at secret peace talks in Finland, but their Northern Ireland-inspired agreement must be endorsed by Iraq's top leaders to succeed, negotiators said Tuesday.

"And at the end of our discussions, we had a tremendous breakthrough," said Sinn Fein deputy leader Martin McGuinness, one of the Northern Ireland politicians attending the talks.

"All of the participants committed themselves to work towards a robust framework for a lasting settlement," he told The Associated Press.

The four-day meeting at an undisclosed location in Finland brought together high-level delegates from the feuding groups to study lessons learned from successful peacemaking efforts in South Africa and Northern Ireland, organizers said.

The talks ended Monday with all parties agreeing on a list of principles to start negotiations to end sectarian violence.

Speaking of troop rotations, I'm betting this will be more popular with the lower ranks than with the brass--

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/92107luk.gif

by eridani on Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 07:20:36 PM PST

---

Arthur,

I can't say enough how much I respect the dedication and effort that both you and Lietta bring to this travesty in our country's history.

I too appreciate Baird's willingness to come home and face his constituents and I also appreciate his position on "we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke." My issue remains his support for the so-call surge.

Based on Baird's own assesment that we will "have to" pull these troops out in six months due to the over extension of manpower and equipment, he is basically saying that he is willing to gamble (with the blood of our troops) that "six more months" will be the turning point at which Iraq will be secure enough for us to decrease our troop strength to "pre-surge" levels.

IF he is right, at best case, hundreds will have died to keep us at the status quo. If he is wrong (which is more likely) hundreds will have died to put off the inevitable.

The blood of your children or anyone else's children (whether they be American or Iraqi) is too high a price to pay for a sucker's bet.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue  

by The Left Shue on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 10:40:54 AM PST

---

What I heard Ladies and Gentlemen was respect for the military and for military families.  I can assure you that came through in how Brian Baird shared the information with us and how he treated us both throughout the meeting, realizing we do have two returning Iraq veterans and that our son-in-law is leaving for Iraq again in upcoming next weeks.

What I heard was more respect for the troops and their families from Rep. Brian Baird than I have sometimes felt from some among the peace/activist communities - local and international.  

What I heard was a respectful mutual exchange in a Town Hall meeting not highjacked and governed by speechifying talking points from amongst peace/activists people too eager to be heard and cheered by their cohorts and less willing to listen.  (No, WB editors, I'm not referencing any of you - I know who I mean and I'll get to that another time).

What I heard Brian Baird say:

-- He has followed the  104th Division (Timberwolves - Reserves, Vancouver, WA) from their basic training to Iraq. He obviously has respect for them, or it assuredly comes across that way as he spoke to us in Raymond.  While I know that the troops are going to talk to  the Congressman through the filter of what they are trained to say and do, there is still a 'coded' way for troops to say what they want to say.  I think Brian is astute enough to be able to 'read' that code.  I didn't get the impression that he visited them once or twice, but that he in earnest followed them as real human beings, military troops and not as photo-op stuff to further his own standing as a Congressman.  That matters to me!

-- He was cautioned not to go to Sadr City - as would be killed. (this is significant to me since the two in our family were extended, 'stop-lossed' in their first 15 month deployment because of the Sadr City uprising)  He stated clearly that  markets in Iraq were not at all like farmers markets here in U.S. and that being depicted as such was not the reality of the situation in Iraq.  General Patraeus did tell him that Ramadi in Anbar Province had been a 'no go' zone and now it is not.  But the stand out feature for Brian was that General Patreaus was not taking credit so much for the improvement in Anbar but that General Patraeus said Anbar progress was likely serendipitous.  General Patreaus said Baghdad was not working.  

Brian said he believed General Patraeus was trying to paint an accurate picture and not one of hype.  Brian said he would trust himself and his own children under General Patraeus leadership.  (note: His children are 2 1/2 yrs old)  He said that General Patreus is different than previous Generals and General Patraeus said the odds are against us if we stay but thinks Iran will move in on Iraq, increasing the ranks of Al Queda.

--Brian said that he met with a Sheik in Ramadi who told him they are fighting now against Al Queda because they are horrible people - beheading children.  The Sheik told him they thought that Al Queda was defending against the opposition, which they formerly had viewed as the U.S., but now they know the aren't defending against the U.S. - now they know the Al Queda are killing us.

-- He believes that Ambassador Crocker is the best we've got; that Crocker was there in Lebanon, and Brian believes that he is the best that America has to offer right now.

-- Brian actually did address issues of political reconciliation, economic reconciliation, diplomacy in Iraq.  (my notes don't show what he said, but that he did address those other three legs of the stool besides the military leg).

-- Brian did NOT try to sell us (Arthur and I) a song and dance about our loved one having to return there, about the troops staying in Iraq - but I believe he believes what he is saying that the U.S. on the global stage are at our last chance, literally, in having any standing whatsoever left on the global stage.  He addressed elements of a super power being a super power because they are loved, respected or feared.  He said he learned from the Middle East leaders in his visits that the U.S. is none of those.

-- Brian does not hesitate to acknowledge all the failures of policy in Iraq; the errors of this Administration and while he does mention his vote against pre-emptive strike in Iraq, he says that we are there now all these years later, and making an assessment of the war in Iraq now is what he is charged to do as a Congressman.

That is what I heard.  It is not that I agree,  and I did challenge Brian on several of the points he mentioned, like the troops will draw down in 6 months (they were already going to anyway - that isn't new or indicative of progress) and gradual reduction of troops (these I liken to talking points from both parties - Republican and Democratic).  I mentioned that General Casey, whom General Patraeus replaced, had said he was coming to believe the troops should withdraw.

When I understood that Brian believed what he was telling us, I recognized that he believes the potential of long war in Iraq - confrontation with Iraq, and an unstabilized Middle East.  My very  urgent question was 'where are these troops coming from'?  (And that is not a talking point - where are these troops coming from, because our existing military is broken - they are not up to the battles ahead - where ever those battles might be.)

Brian was quick to acknowledge the severity of that situation - that the military is broken, and there are not enough troops or willing new recruits, which is why he has so much admiration for these troops, and their families and what we are sacrificing.  (Understand that I resent and hate hearing that kind of phrasing - it's too convenient, too easy; and I made a face of disdain that Brian recognized and he addressed me personally to try to convey that he really means it, not something he is just saying)

This about wraps up the meeting, he needed to leave and his staff aids were trying to get him to wrap it up and get going.  He did come over to Arthur and I afterwards to talk with us, to thank us, and I shook his hand and thanked him.  Not because I agree with his conclusions, but because he seemed sincere to me, authentic and damn it, I have wanted to hear how he arrived at his conclusions since the news broke that he was now in favor of keeping troops in Iraq.  I wanted to hear it from him, not through the filters of the media, or the filters of the peace/activist/bloggers perspectives. And in this town hall meeting, I was able to ask him my questions, state my concerns, represent our family and not the peace/ activist community or their messages or their staged theater.

 Brian had one of the staffers take my name and contact info and I don't know what that means, as I had said in the meeting that his office had not returned my phone call or responded to my email letter.  But I did say to Brian as the meeting was drawing to a close that I would give him the opportunity to share this second deployment with us and that I would provide updates 2-3 times a week.  He said, in front of the people there, that he would welcome that.

There was one 'staged' speech at the Raymond Town Hall by a person I learned the next day via the Daily World article was from Aberdeen.  During the meeting, he asked a young person to stand up and then made the point that he was a Vietnam veteran and didn't want to see this kid turned into hamburger.  That's impassioned to be sure, but I had to wonder how the young man felt being used in a theatrical spectacle that way and what the young man thought while he was being used to make a point and how he felt afterwards.  I don't know if the young person knew the speechifier or if both were strangers to each other.  The rest of his speechifying had to do with telling Brian Baird that he doesn't care what Brian thinks, it's Brian's job to reprsent us and to carry that message to Congress. That Brian needs a lesson in Civics, and that Brian should watch Ken Burn's 'The War' - all ten episodes. Brian did respond, answering that he didn't need lessons in civics and explained what he already knew, corrected the speech maker that we live in a democratic republic, then cited the allegiance to the flag 'the republic for which we stand'; that he did have 'skin in the game' in that when he located his family to Washingon D.C., the repeated 'terror alarms' to evacuate had him scurrying not for safety but to ensure his family was safe.

  This wasn't an exchange, and the person making the speech used the opportunity to passionatley make his points without being willing to listen to Brian's responses. And from there then it was purely the speechifying I've heard over and over again at rallies, events, marches, etc...I can recite it all.  It is coming to represent much of what I am coming to appreciate less and less about how the peace/activist community is conducting itself as it counters with it's own talking points until there is nothing but a meaningless back and forth with talking points thrown back and forth and very little in between.

Afterwards the speechifying person came over to me to apologize, and I asked what it was he was apologizing for, I didn't think he need to apologize to me if what he was saying is what he believes, then asked him - are you from here?  He didn't answer.  He asked me if I knew of Code Pink. Oh groan, I knew immediately where this was going, and explained, yes, I know Code Pink, and yes, I know Cindy Sheehan; I was one of the very first military families to go down to Crawford; and yes, I know Lt. Watada - now where are you from?  He answered vaguely somewhere west of here.  Yes, I thought, likely from the hot-headed Olympia crowd. (I'm not too fond of the Olympia crowd - I have found them to be anti-military and unwilling to listen to military families or the troops unless it is a 'resister'.  I find that too much of the 'good soldier/bad soldier' paradigm mentality among their ranks and it impedes conversation and/or collaboration.)   Later, I learned reading in the Daily World article that the speechifier was from Aberdeen. So maybe he wasn't/isn't from the Olympia crowd.

 You know, I need the in between though, I need it to be more than win/lose -- right/wrong  -- opposing messages.  I need to have my own message and not organizational messages, some of which are quite willing to exploit the troops and their families to further their own messages, or selves, or egos or parties or politics.  I have myself asked myself a few questions in the private thoughts of my mind, like why aren't more military families speaking out after five years; like why do the troops keep returning to Iraq  2-3-4 or more deployments and they seem to do so with the time-honored values of duty, honor, courage and service to my country; why is it the Vietnam era type messaging that seems to be prevailing and what does this younger generation of military and their families have to say?  What do we do now that it has been five years, and where are we really in Iraq now - wrong as it was in the first place?  And I need to have those as real conversations that won't get shouted down by one side or the other.

  wrapping this up - I do have something I can tell my son-in-law as I try to explain U.S. Representative Brian Baird's reasoning for why he now believes the troops will need to remain in Iraq.  And that Brian Baird will know of my son-in-law, know there is a military family sleepless in Pacific County; and he has said he will not sleep well at night knowing what his decision means; we are a real family to him now, and I don't want him to sleep well - we won't be. But somehow there is dignity in how this exchange took place between us.  In these horrific times, it is a small thing to ask, and he gave it.  It hasn't always been so among politicians, trust me I know first hand.

I don't and likely won't agree with Brian Baird's assessment or conclusion to keep the troops in Iraq.  I can't see how and said to him I can't see how with this Administration 6 months or a year will make any difference and our son-in-law will be in Iraq 15, possibly 19 month - until Jan 2009 when this President leaves office (if he leaves office).
But I can see why Brian has arrived at the conclusion he has arrived at given the information he has to work with and I needed to hear that from him.  

Brian can take the criticisms, they won't kill, unlike bullets, IEDs that will kill.   I like to think he has been inspired by the courage of the troops and their families to face the criticisms, the outrage, the outcry and tell us what he understands to be the current reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq.  I don't agree, I don't like it, but he did not dishonor us or our loved ones, or our son-in-law leaving for Iraq soon, and for that I am reminded of something  that seems to have gotten lost these past years.  I think Arthur was trying to capture that 'something' in writing the story the way he did.  

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

by Lietta Ruger on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 03:44:18 PM PST

---

 This question was raised at the Raymond Town Hall, and Brian responded with question - on what grounds would you impeach - what specifically could be proved?  And then he also said that throw away comment that most Dems seem to say -- there isn't time, there isn't energy with so much else to focus on.  

But he did say something that really grabbed my attention.  He did say (paraphrasing and probably badly at that) with impeachment of Clinton on far less of an infraction, impeaching the next consecutive president may set a precedent that would be better not set - the impulse to reach too quickly for impeachment, and the impact for future presidents.  

 

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

by Lietta Ruger on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 09:32:55 PM PST

---

Iraq except hide behind the skirts of the military. That's the ultimate rape and pillage of America's finest families who prove that fact every day with every fearful moment for their loved ones.

The military is no longer the best tool for Iraq and our people in power who can act are either too afraid or too god damn dumb to realize it.

By keeping the military engaged while putting off and making excuses for not emphasizing any other approach with vigor, our leaders shame us all and treat us like fools.

In May 1966, retired Gen. David Shoup, former commandant of the Marine Corps, said this about the escalating war in Vietnam: "I believe if we had, and would, keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own ... not one crammed down their throats by the Americans."

Generals opposing Iraq war break with military tradition

Dumb American civilians like the President of Columbia make a grandstand play of a speech against Ahmadinejad. Some other American political substitute pencil sharpener for the scorekeeper badmouths Hugo Chavez. When we piss and moan about people who put their country before the interests of ours, we sound like granddaughters of plantation owners who bemoan the ruination of their lives because the family no longer owns slaves.

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

by Arthur Ruger on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 06:18:38 AM PST

---