Defending their war - the "press corps" should pay closer attention

I assume that everyone's heard the really important news of the day, namely Britney's explanations for some of the more controversial events in her life recently. So I won't dwell on that.

But it strikes me that our Dear Leader Bush may have been fortunate to have his last two speeches on the Iraq War overshadowed, buried even, by other news events. But that may not be entirely a good thing, because they seem to show him embracing an even more intransigent and radical position on the war and the war critics.

Monday's speech saw Dear Leader promoting and endorsing Merrilee Carlson and her hard right group, Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, whose real purpose seems to be promoting "culture war" stereotypes of war critics being dirty hippies who hang around with black people, still the favorite nightmare for lots of Republican white folks, even some that weren't even born yet when Nixon left office. At the Families United blog for 04/19/07 (which doesn't allow links to individual posts), Carlson linked to this post (The Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Gathering of Eagles [GOE] GOE Web site, 04/14/07) concerning the "Gathering of Eagles" group, which is essentially a group whose purpose is to organize prowar demonstrations that piggy-back on antiwar demonstrations by promoting themselves as anti-antiwar protests. The author, Henry Cook III, writes the following about the ANSWER antiwar group:

Who were these people ? A.N.S.W.E.R., purely an arm of the communist party of the United States , joined by Code Pink, the National Council of Arab Americans, the Muslim American Society, the 9-11 Truth Movement (They claim 9-11 was a hoax.) a number of Palestinian and Lebanese support groups, pro-Castro and Che Gueverra groups, the Viet Nam Veterans against the war, at least one Anarchist group and a number of hippie-throwbacks, all receiving encouragement by Hanoi Jane Fonda, Ramsey Clark, Sean Penn, Ed Asner with Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and the newest anti-war poster child, Cindy Sheehan. (my emphasis)

By Apollo who strikes from afar, these people just cannot get over their own obsession with the 1960s! It's over, folks! Yes, some guys let their hair grow long and young men and women had sex without being married, as shocking and unprecedented in the history of the world as that may have been. But it was 40 years ago, people.

And as enticing as all those forbidden pleases with the dope-smoking and all may have always sounded to you, it couldn't possibly have been as much fun as you think it was. Really. Now most of the guys who grew their hair long don't have enough hair to grow it long even if they wanted to, unless they go for the ponytail look, which is kind of an investment-banker thing. And the people in all those orgies you imagined were going on have gone through pretty much the same things that the boring Young Republicans of those days have: marriages and divorces, kids with the usual issues kids have, regular jobs, boring commutes, stints in rehab for this or that addiction, and so on and so forth. So, just. Get. Over. It.

Now, International ANSWER does have leftwing (as distinct from "liberal" in the American sense) ties, supposedly starting out as a "front group" of the Workers World Party, which actually began as a Trotskyist group but evolved into more of a Brezhnev-type (Brezhnevite?) group. The WWP, so far as I've ever heard, exists mostly in New York City, though Chicago always seems to wind up with outpost of small leftwing groups. But the larger antiwar demonstrations have been organized by broader coalitions, including people like the Quakers' American Friends Service Committee.

But here we see the difference between an accurate statement and a McCarthyist smear. It may be true that John takes drugs. But if the drugs John is taking are allergy medicine, that doesn't make it true to say that he's a heroin addict that sells crack to preteens. And to say that ANSWER is "purely an arm of the communist party of the United States" is just doofus stuff.

But this is the kind of political allies Dear Leader Bush was celebrating on Monday. I wish some reporter would take a while and research Families United a little more closely.

Gauleiter Cook also makes this interesting comment about the demonstrators that the GOE group was bringing to Washington in March:

Warnings had been given by the Park Service Police that no flagpoles, staffs or other items that could be used as weapons would be allowed in the vicinity of the memorials. However, we urged our members to not forget their walking canes. Those who did not have a cane quickly learned that each hotel’s lost and found department had canes that only needed someone to claim them. (my emphasis)

Along with his own account of a counter-demo, which I would not recommend taking simply on his word in that post because it doesn't give with news reports I remember of the event, he says:

Some of our members ventured into "Indian country" seeking to further provoke the protesters but later reported that such was not possible. It was reported that there was a serious lack of commitment on the part of the moon-bats when it came to standing up for their alleged beliefs when confronted by a veteran. One member of the Order even ventured up to the stage at the moon-bat rally, hopped up on the stage and whipped out a MOPH Memorial Plaque inscribed with the picture and name of Casey Sheehan and presented it to Cindy Sheehan on behalf of the Order. To say that she was shocked speechless would be an understatement.

We should be clear about what these people are saying here. Of course, we always have to remember that the blowhard white-guy crowd like nothing better than to huff and puff about how they're ready to kick somebody's ass and how they intimidate their wimpy enemies. So most of these people are more likely to get drunk and whack each other with those sticks than to use them against an "anarchist".

But still, this Hook article is encouraging people to go their counter-demonstrations with sticks that can be used to club people, to try to provoke confronatations with antiwar demonstrators and even try to forcibly disrupt antiwar speeches.

In other words, they are hoping for some kind of media re-enactment of the fabled hard-hats fighting protesters scene which the Nixon administration managed to set up one time, in a scene with became a "culture war" symbol of how working-class people supposedly loved the Vietnam War and hated the dirty hippies. It's also worth remembering that for that purpose, Nixon "plumbers" (secret political police operation) hired some steelworker goons specifically to do that.

Like I say, it would be good if some reporter paid closer attention to these rightwing groups, including their donors.

Even by Cook's own dubious factual account, the antiwar demonstrators they confronted in Washington were nonviolent, and apparently pretty sensible about avoiding getting sucked into provocations from thugs with sticks looking and hoping for a fight.

This is what the Families United group that Dear Leader highlighted this week and whose president Marilee Carlson he singled out for special recognition. This is worth paying attention to. Any Congressional investigators looking into public funds going to Blackwater or other "private security" companies should pay close attention for funds that may be winding up with groups like Families United that the President so warmly approves.

Then on Thursday, we had President Bush Discusses the Global War on Terror in Tipp City, Ohio. Dear Leader was less articulate than usual, and bloggers like Atrios and Digby noticed that he was spacier than usual, especially in wrestling with his talking points on "Iraq and Vietnam".

But even more striking to me in that particular speech is how Our Leader is promoting the most simplistic talking points, including Dick Cheney favorite of trying to make the Iraq War sound like a response to the 9/11 attacks:

My decision making was deeply affected by the attack of September the 11th, 2001. It was a - it was a moment that defined a dangerous world to me with absolute clarity. I realized then that this country was no longer invulnerable to attack from what may be happening overseas. [As opposed to all those decades where Soviet and American nuclear missiles were pointed at each other during the Cold War?]

I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is active and is lethal. At further study of that enemy, I realized that they share an ideology, that these weren't - that the - and when you really think about it, the September the 11th attack was not the first attack. There was a 1993 World Trade Center attack, there was attacks on our embassies in East Africa, there was an attack on the USS Cole, there have been other attacks on U.S. citizens, and that these attacks were instigated and carried out by cold-blooded killers who have a belief system. They are threatened by free societies. They can't stand the thought of freedom being the prevailing attitude in the world because their view is, if you don't believe in what I believe in, you probably shouldn't be around.

This enemy is smart, capable, and unpredictable. They have defined a war on the United States, and I believe we're at war. I believe the attack on America made it clear that we're at war. I wish that wasn't the case. Nobody ought to ever hope to be a war President, or a presidency - a President during war.

But that's how I see the world. And I made a vow that I would do everything I could, and work with members of Congress to do everything they could, to protect the United States. It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country from harm. (my emphasis)

He continues with his version of the neocons conservative-Trotskyist idea of grand wars of liberation:

A lesson learned was that, at least in my opinion, that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so we don't have to face them here. In other words, if what happens overseas matters to the United States, therefore, the best way to protect us is to deal with threats overseas. In other words, we just can't let a threat idle; we can't hope that a threat doesn't come home to hurt us. A lesson of that terrible day was, threats overseas can come home to hurt us. And so the fundamental question - and this has led to constructive debate - it's, what do you do about it?

I've chosen a path that says we will go overseas and defeat them there. I also know full well that it's important for us if we're facing an ideology, if we're facing ideologues, if we're confronting people who believe something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a better belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It matters how - the nature of the government in which people live. And therefore, I have put as part of our foreign policy not only an aggressive plan to find extremists and radicals and bring them to justice before they hurt us, but also to help people live in liberty - free societies, as the great alternative to people living under a tyrant, for example.

And so my decision making was based upon those principles. And now we're involved in - I call it a global war against terror. You can't call it a global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a global war against people who want to hurt America; you can call it whatever you want, but it is a global effort. And by the way, the United States is not alone in this effort. We're helping lead an effort. And the major battlefield in this global war is Iraq. And I want to spend some time talking about Iraq. (my emphasis)

The following passage reflects a pretty compact collection of faith-based associations around the Iraq War:

A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop talking and answer your questions. People often ask me, what are we seeing on TV? What's happening with the violence? Here's my best analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are al Qaeda inspired. They claim credit for a lot of the big bombings. The bombing of the parliament was al Qaeda; the bombing of the Golden Samarra was al Qaeda. These are the Sunni extremists inspired by Osama bin Laden who attacked the United States. I keep repeating that because I want you to understand what matters overseas, in my judgment, affects the security of the United States of America in this new era.

Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average Iraqi that their government is incapable of providing security, and therefore, people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves. Their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting war, isn't it, where asymmetrical warfare is - and that means people being able to use suicide bombers - not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps define whether or not we're successful.

If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we'll never be successful. We will have handed al Qaeda "that's what it takes" in order to determine whether or not these young democracies, for example, can survive. Think about that: if our definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead.

Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by providing advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some militias, tend to be Shia militias, all aiming to create discomfort, all aiming to kind of - according to some - to create enough discomfort for the United States, but in doing so, they're making it harder for this young democracy to emerge. Isn't it interesting, when you really take a step back and think about what I just said, that al Qaeda is making serious moves in Iraq, as is surrogates for Iran.

Two of the biggest issues we face for the security of this country today and tomorrow is al Qaeda and Iran. (my emphasis)

Apart from the demagoguery about Al Qaida and Iran, there is also that hardcore authoritarian point, garbled though it was: "Their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting war, isn't it, where asymmetrical warfare is ... not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people ... but also helps define whether or not we're successful."

Now, to do a close reading, Dear Leader could have been talking about his administration when he refers to "our confidence". But in the context of his speech and his general push for his version of supplemental war funding, it's clear by "our confidence" that he means the support of Democrats for his disastrous war policies. Besides being sleazy, it's also a tremendous alibi for his own administration's failures and shortcomings in this war, and also for those of our infallible generals.

Tags: authoritarianism, bush, cindy sheehan, families united for our troops and their mission, gathering of eagles, iraq war, merrilee carlson

Do "the troops" = the war policy?

Bush: Only people who support my failed policies really support the troops

Our Dear Leader Bush addressed his subjects today, banging hard on how opposing his disastrous war policy in Iraq means opposing "the troops". As I've said here several times, I wish the Democrats had tried earlier to reframe the notion that putting conditions on war funding was failing to "support the troops in the field". The current face-off is likely to help do that, and hopefully it will. Congress passed funding for our troops in the field with a withdrawal deadline attached and Bush is threatening to veto the funding for "troops in the field".

There was something in Dear Leader's message today that particulary struck me:

We owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the full support. It's important as people debate this issue to think about somebody like Merrilee Carlson, with us today. She's a Gold Star Mom. Two years ago, Merrilee's son, Michael, gave his life in Iraq when his platoon was on a night mission to take out two terrorist bomb-making factories. As they approached their target, they passed over a culvert that gave way, and their Bradley fighting vehicle plunged into the water and Michael and four others in the vehicle died that day.

Michael penned a high school essay before he joined the Army. This is what he wrote: "I want my life to account for something. Everyone eventually loses their life. I have only so much time. I want to fight for something, be a part of something greater than myself. I want to be a soldier or something of that caliber." He became a soldier, he gave his life for something greater than himself. And now his mom and dad have one just demand, and that is to make sure that Michael's sacrifice is not in vain.

We owe it to the Carlson family, we owe it to other Gold Star families here today, to complete the mission for which their loved ones gave their lives. We owe it to a future generation of Americans to help secure peace. We owe it to the American people to make this nation safer. The most solemn obligation of the government and Washington is to provide security for the American people and to protect them from harm.

Bush had a number of veterans and military families there.

Here is the photo that the White House provided of the scene at its Web site:


Politicians of course have to tiptoe around things like this. But we all need to see this for what it is. There are soldiers and veterans who support the Iraq War, there are soldiers and veterans who oppose it. Merrilee Carlson lost her son in that war and she believes its important to support Bush's war policy. Cindy Sheehan lost her son in that war and she campaigns to put an end to it.

It's normal for people who have lost loved ones to adopt a "survivor's mission" of some sort. Some survivors of soldiers lost in war adopt a mission to cheer for the war. As Chris Hedges points out in War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning, at some point in all wars, the dead already lost in the war become a justification for continuing the war in order to validate the earlier sacrifices. That very sentiment is a major reason that the opposing European nations in the First World War continued for years in a bloody war of attrition that was largely a catastrophe whose aftermath set the stage for wars to come: not just the Second World War, but even the current conflict in Iraq can be seen in some ways as a long-range result of Britain's decisions imposed on the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

Others may adopt a survivor's mission to oppose the war and end the killing, while others may find survivor's missions unrelated to the war. As a personal psychological coping mechanism, I don't know of any reason to think that one is any more valuable than the other.

But even though those who have endured the sacrifice of losing a family member will always have an emotional claim to respect in earning a hearing for their position, in the end their arguments about the war policy need to be judged on their merits. Because neither continuing the war nor ending it, honorably or otherwise, will bring Michael Carlson or Casey Sheehan or any of the other lost soldiers back to life.

And there is one way in which war critics are at a disadvantage to the war supporters when it comes to those who have lost family memmbers in the current wars. The Republicans haven't been shy about ridiculing, insulting, sneering at and trying in various ways to discredit Cindy Sheehan. I would be very surprised if we see such attacks on Merrilee Carlson from major liberal opinion journals and Web sites or the kind of bloggers we normally quote here.

That doesn't mean that Merrilee Carlson should get a completely free pass from reasonable scruntiny of his political positions. Carlson is president of a group Bush mentioned in his speech, Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission. As of this writing, the Web page authomatically plays a video and audio of her that starts with her saying, "I get frustrated and, and a little bit angry, mostly when our own people are negative." She starts her prowar pitch, in other words, with expressing frustration and anger at her fellow citizens.

There is also a blog at the Web site. Carlson's name is listing along with several others as participating in the blog, though most posts there at this writing seem to be from her. On 04/15/07, she posted a letter from a woman named Debbie Lee (the blog doesn't seem to allow links to individual posts), who wrote:

This letter is a call to action to the silent majority in America. It is a dangerous time in the history of our country and we can no longer quietly sit back on our apathetic rears and hope that someone else will speak for us, or that someone else will make a difference. Many Americans have listened to the lies of the liberal media and have adopted a defeated attitude that they can't make a difference. (my emphasis)

Recounting how her son was killed in Ramadi, Iraq, Lee writes:

Many people have commented to me, "the terrorists took your son's life that day." The terrorists didn't "take" my sons life, Marc willingly "gave" his life. ... As a single parent, raising 3 small children became overwhelming at times, and I didn't have all of the answers. At times I didn't have any of the answers. When my children would come to me with tough decisions to be made, I knew I didn't know everything, but I had learned that I did know the one who did. God promises to be a husband to the widow and a father to the fatherless and my children had often heard me tell them to "Go ask your Father." They knew that meant to spend some time with their Heavenly Father. They knew that He loved them so much he had sent his son who willingly "gave" his life so that they could spend an eternity with Christ. Marc was confident in where his final destination would be. Marc was just following in His Daddy's footsteps when he gave his life for you and I. Jesus Christ and the American GI are the only ones I know who were willingly to die for us. Shouldn't we be willing to live for them? (my emphasis)

This is certainly the language of a survivor's mission. But her letter doesn't give us any good reasons that I can see why it's a good idea for more Americans to die in this war, just vague references to terrorists and 9/11. That may sound harsh or unkind, but other people's lives are at stake as well. And the damage the war is doing to the US position in the world is real. She continues:

The media, Hollywood and the liberal's [sic] want us to believe that we are failing in Iraq. They have made it their "political agenda" to change the world, they want the spotlight, they want to be in control. They want it to be "all about them," and are trying to figure out how they can use this for their gain. Look at Nancy Pelosi, she makes a "publicity" trip to Syria despite Whitehouse objections. Then, she acts as though she is representing the Nation that told her not to go and promises President Assad that there is an alternative Democratic foreign policy. Talk about political agenda! Only the President has that constitutional authority! Sounds like treason to me and grounds for an impeachment. How self centered and ridiculous is that! Isn't this about HERE AND NOW! We must remain united and not let the Nancy Pelosi's and Cindy Sheehan's speak for the minority of America! (my emphasis)

So much for respecting the grief of family members of soldiers killed in war. Calling Nancy Pelosi and traitor is just sleaze, period. That's probably a Freudian slip in that last sentence, "We must ... not let the Nancy Pelosi's and Cindy Sheehan's speak for the minority of America!" And, indeed, her point of view on the war is very much a minority point of view now. (I would also not that "culture warriors" use "Hollywood" as a synonym for "the Jews".)

Others of Carlson's posts include a notice about presentation from the rightwing Federalist Society (04/01/07) and this 03/30/07 post about "Brotherhood" relating her experiences at a prowar rally on March 17 in Washington:

Upon seeing and hearing the sights and sounds of the antiwar group gathered just across the mall from our group; it was VietNam era warmed over. Youngsters either too young to understand or care, led by gray headed Hanoi Jane supporters of the sixties gathered once again. The signs and slogans were just as meaningless and silly as they were back in the day.

It has occurred to me that for such a position to have the support of anyone, they would have to be ignorant of the truth. Strictly political opposition would be another motivation for support of the antiwar position, hence, the absurd bills being circulated in the congress.

The antiwar group and the mainstream news media have not changed since VietNam era. ... There is no way that the “support our troops” and, the antiwar sentiment, can exist in the same thought. It is like the now famous “I voted for it until I voted against it”...

The latter, of course, being a reference to Republican attacks on John Kerry.

She also links to a Michelle Malkin video (03/25/07) and to a clip of Carlson herself appearing on Chris Matthews' Hardball (04/10/07).

Marilee Carlson 01/17/06 (from the Families United Web site)

According to this interview Carlson gave to the Soldiers Angels milblog over a year ago, Interview With Merrilee Carlson from Midwest Heroes 03/01/06, it was to oppose Sheehan's protest that she first became involved in prowar activism:

In August 2004, a vocal minority was making noise in Texas about the need to pull our troops out of Iraq. The media picked this up and blasted it around the world saying Gold Star moms wanted the troops brought home. Being a Gold Star mom [mother of a soldier killed in action], the honor of my son compelled me to find a way to speak out in support of our troops and the completion of their mission.

She also gave her notion of how press coverage of the war should be handled:

It is important that these [prowar] voices be heard. We constantly hear the cost of the war, soldiers lost, destruction, insurgent attacks but this is only one side of the story. We wish to encourage the media to tell more of the positive stories that talk about the rebuilding of lives in Iraq, of freedoms gained, schools built. We would hope that they would tell a balanced broadcast - if there is an attack - counter it with a success story. We understand that you cannot balance everything - there is no way to balance the death of a soldier with anything but the story of the pride and honor with which they served.

I wonder if our press corps will mention in their news articles that Carlson is a prominent prowar spokesperson and the president of an organization that espouses hard right views. Those are relevant pieces of information, especially since the President has prominently singled her out as a preferred representative of military families.

Another consideration on this that I'll mention, one I'm sure Bush and Rove and Cheney don't care one whit about, is that there is something unseemly about the President surrounding himself with military families on the occasion of making a political pitch over a key policy issue like this.

The US President is not only head of government but also head of state, two roles that are separated in many other democracies. In Britain and Spain, for instance, the crown is the head of state, the prime minister the head of government. In Germany and Austria, the president is the head of state and the prime minister head of government. And since the US President is the head of state, I think there's something inappropriate about him featuring military families who support his political policies in a privileged way like this. The head of state should be maintaining a less partisan stance when it comes to honoring the sacrifices of soldiers and their families' losses.

Tags: bush, cindy sheehan, families united for our troops and their mission, iraq war, merrilee carlson