Wednesday, June 29, 2005
History Lessons
I can't begin to imagine what Ann and Bill Byers of Schleswig, Iowa, must be going through right now.
One might think there could be nothing worse than losing a young son -- with an infant daughter of his own he's never held or even seen -- to a war launched under false pretences. But there was: losing another -- the only remaining son and also a soldier -- two days before the first son's funeral. And on top of this "double tragedy," having the second son's death initially ruled as a suicide only to have that decision reversed and then ruled as an accident.
The story of Casey and Justin Byers carries an unspeakable amount of grief. Like many other Iowans, I was both stunned and saddened after learning of Justin's death (and asking all the endless "whys"), but it took Bret Hayworth's beautifully written and moving article in the Sioux City Journal on Casey Byers' funeral that finally unleashed the anger and tears.
The verbal image of Spc. Juan Ramos (Byers' friend and injured comrade) falling to his knees and wailing gripped me by the throat and wouldn't let go. Through his words, Hayworth presented an all too real portrait of the devastating toll this war has taken -- and continues to take -- on family, friends, comrades and entire communities. It's an emotion few reporters are willing to get close enough to touch.
How I wish Mr. Bush would have attended this funeral. Then again, Bush won't attend any of these funerals, nor will he answer to the countless military families demanding answers as to why he knowingly lied - and continues to lie - about t(his) war.
Sadly, I believe the answer lies in the words Justin Byers wrote shortly before his own death, which he'd planned to read at his brother's funeral. In stating why both he and his brother supported the war on terror, Justin wrote:
"If we don't go over there, they will come over here and take our freedoms."
This is what makes this story so terribly heartbreaking. It isn't that these brothers died at such young ages, but died believing they were making sacrifices in the name of freedom.
I couldn't possibly be more proud of Sgt. Casey Byers or his brother, Justin Byers. They were brought up and raised to believe that one could -- should, in fact -- be able to trust their president. Isn't that the way it should be? Isn't that what history teaches us? After all, what kind of shape would a country be in if people couldn't trust their own leader? Wouldn't that make us - God forbid - "unpatriotic?"
Hmm. I'm guessing lots of people from Iraq and Germany knew the answer to this question and knew it well. The only thing is, we can't ask them because they're dead.
Then again, someone knew, and answered it better than anyone:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Before it's all over, each and every American will have to answer to themselves: "At what point do I start trusting my own eyes and heart and soul?"
One might think there could be nothing worse than losing a young son -- with an infant daughter of his own he's never held or even seen -- to a war launched under false pretences. But there was: losing another -- the only remaining son and also a soldier -- two days before the first son's funeral. And on top of this "double tragedy," having the second son's death initially ruled as a suicide only to have that decision reversed and then ruled as an accident.
The story of Casey and Justin Byers carries an unspeakable amount of grief. Like many other Iowans, I was both stunned and saddened after learning of Justin's death (and asking all the endless "whys"), but it took Bret Hayworth's beautifully written and moving article in the Sioux City Journal on Casey Byers' funeral that finally unleashed the anger and tears.
The verbal image of Spc. Juan Ramos (Byers' friend and injured comrade) falling to his knees and wailing gripped me by the throat and wouldn't let go. Through his words, Hayworth presented an all too real portrait of the devastating toll this war has taken -- and continues to take -- on family, friends, comrades and entire communities. It's an emotion few reporters are willing to get close enough to touch.
How I wish Mr. Bush would have attended this funeral. Then again, Bush won't attend any of these funerals, nor will he answer to the countless military families demanding answers as to why he knowingly lied - and continues to lie - about t(his) war.
Sadly, I believe the answer lies in the words Justin Byers wrote shortly before his own death, which he'd planned to read at his brother's funeral. In stating why both he and his brother supported the war on terror, Justin wrote:
"If we don't go over there, they will come over here and take our freedoms."
This is what makes this story so terribly heartbreaking. It isn't that these brothers died at such young ages, but died believing they were making sacrifices in the name of freedom.
I couldn't possibly be more proud of Sgt. Casey Byers or his brother, Justin Byers. They were brought up and raised to believe that one could -- should, in fact -- be able to trust their president. Isn't that the way it should be? Isn't that what history teaches us? After all, what kind of shape would a country be in if people couldn't trust their own leader? Wouldn't that make us - God forbid - "unpatriotic?"
Hmm. I'm guessing lots of people from Iraq and Germany knew the answer to this question and knew it well. The only thing is, we can't ask them because they're dead.
Then again, someone knew, and answered it better than anyone:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt
Before it's all over, each and every American will have to answer to themselves: "At what point do I start trusting my own eyes and heart and soul?"
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Daily Kos: Two Ways to Talk About Ending the War
Daily Kos: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: " Democrats have been loathe to talk about Iraq, as their palpable fear get in the way of leadership on this increasingly important issue.
So here are two ways to talk about the war that don't betray weakness:
Promoting a withdrawal
We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.
We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.
But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.
Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on "accountability".
We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don't have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.
We must have accountability in order to win this war. Those responsible for so many catastrophic mistakes must replaced by more competent, more effective, people.
The war will be the issue in 2006. I've already talked to several Democratic candidates who think they can get elected talking about social security and health care. Rubbish. That's what Democrats thought in 2002 and 2004, and the war intruded both cycles. Given the way things are going over there, 2006 promises to be no different.
The American public has turned heavily against the war, despite the absence of an anti-war movement, despite the 24/7 cheerleading of the war in the cable news networks, and despite the lack of coherent Democratic opposition to the war. Democrats must ride that wave into 2006, and can do so in ways where they don't sound like hippy retreads.
What is NOT an option is remaining silent on the war, as so many Democrats would obviously prefer. "
So here are two ways to talk about the war that don't betray weakness:
Promoting a withdrawal
We have a lot to be proud of over the past three years. We have freed the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and given them their first taste of freedom. Iraq held successful presidential elections earlier this year, and the nation is now run by a democratic-elected government.
We have accomplished what we set out to do -- bring freedom to Iraq and rid the region of the specter of Saddam's terror.
But now it is time to let the Iraqis take charge of their own lives. The future belongs to a free democratic Iraq, but it is a future they must fight for themselves.
Afraid to call for withdrawal? Hammer on "accountability".
We are facing a crisis in Iraq, and yet no one is being held accountable. Our troops don't have enough men, equipment, or armor to effectively and safely do their job, yet those responsible for these deadly miscalculations remain at their jobs. They claim, as they always have, that Iraq is about to turn yet another corner, pass yet another milestone on the road to peace and prosperity. But the reality on the ground mocks those assertions.
We must have accountability in order to win this war. Those responsible for so many catastrophic mistakes must replaced by more competent, more effective, people.
The war will be the issue in 2006. I've already talked to several Democratic candidates who think they can get elected talking about social security and health care. Rubbish. That's what Democrats thought in 2002 and 2004, and the war intruded both cycles. Given the way things are going over there, 2006 promises to be no different.
The American public has turned heavily against the war, despite the absence of an anti-war movement, despite the 24/7 cheerleading of the war in the cable news networks, and despite the lack of coherent Democratic opposition to the war. Democrats must ride that wave into 2006, and can do so in ways where they don't sound like hippy retreads.
What is NOT an option is remaining silent on the war, as so many Democrats would obviously prefer. "
Bush Loves/Hates Timetables to End War
Think Progress: "In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.
George W. Bush, 4/9/99:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]
VERSUS
George W. Bush, 6/24/05:
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”"
George W. Bush, 4/9/99:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
[ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]
VERSUS
George W. Bush, 6/24/05:
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”"
