We are all patriots, not just arrogant generals with big mouths
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.
|
July 4, 2009 |
T.A. Barnhart | Comments (70 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 4, 2009 6:16:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Assegai Up Jacksey | Jul 4, 2009 6:18:49 PM
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?".
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 4, 2009 6:26:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Old Ducker | Jul 4, 2009 7:22:22 PM
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.
Posted by: extramsg | Jul 4, 2009 7:44:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Stephen Amy | Jul 4, 2009 7:53:21 PM
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?
Posted by: Old Ducker | Jul 4, 2009 8:00:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 4, 2009 8:08:42 PM
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...?
Posted by: Stephen Amy | Jul 4, 2009 8:16:13 PM
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?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 4, 2009 8:27:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Stephen Amy | Jul 4, 2009 8:40:09 PM
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.
Posted by: Old Ducker | Jul 4, 2009 8:58:34 PM
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.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 4, 2009 9:09:27 PM
@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.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jul 4, 2009 9:18:42 PM
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?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Jul 4, 2009 9:21:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Notorious Kelly | Jul 4, 2009 9:23:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Kristin | Jul 4, 2009 10:07:00 PM
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.
Posted by: LT | Jul 4, 2009 11:04:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 5, 2009 12:03:58 AM
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.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 5, 2009 12:48:42 AM
"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.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 5, 2009 12:50:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 5, 2009 9:48:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 5, 2009 9:48:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 10:05:51 AM
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.
Posted by: evil is evil | Jul 5, 2009 11:15:41 AM
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.
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 5, 2009 12:24:47 PM
"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.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 5, 2009 12:26:26 PM
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'.........
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 5, 2009 12:35:26 PM
Matthew 25:31
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 12:45:41 PM
The Supernatural Boogeyman ain't getting anyone. On the other hand, retroactive abortions are earned every day the world 'round.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 12:56:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike (One of the many) | Jul 5, 2009 12:58:47 PM
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.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 5, 2009 1:01:08 PM
@TA you dumbass
Try reading my post in its entirety before commenting. I WAS SUPPORTING YOU and mocking conservatives on their faux patriotism.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 1:20:22 PM
It should be clear from the tone of the post that TA is pacifist-aggressive.
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.
Posted by: Richard | Jul 5, 2009 3:53:54 PM
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.
Posted by: SFC USA (Ret) | Jul 5, 2009 4:29:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Jim | Jul 5, 2009 4:51:00 PM
"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.
Posted by: SFC USA (Ret) | Jul 5, 2009 5:07:07 PM
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.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 5, 2009 5:25:24 PM
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.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jul 5, 2009 5:26:17 PM
mp, congrats on the daily double: hiding your identity & name-calling. wear it with pride, dude.
Posted by: mp97303 | Jul 5, 2009 5:32:13 PM
Who put a turd in your punchbowl TA? I must admit to being at a loss for words. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Posted by: SFC USA (Ret) | Jul 5, 2009 5:56:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jul 5, 2009 6:45:33 PM
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.
Posted by: alcatross | Jul 5, 2009 7:10:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 5, 2009 7:30:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 5, 2009 8:24:41 PM
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.)
Posted by: Jamais Vu | Jul 5, 2009 9:18:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Ty-d-bowl man | Jul 5, 2009 10:02:18 PM
He's talking about you, douchebag.
Posted by: Boats | Jul 5, 2009 10:13:57 PM
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.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: extramsg | Jul 4, 2009 5:58:57 PM
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.