Antiwar Protests

Nice to hit the online edition of The Burlington Free Press, my favorite local daily, this morning and catch Matt Sutkoski's article about the antiwar protest on Friday at the Vermont National Guard recruiting office in Williston.

Everyone from local high school students to soldiers who fought in the Bush-Cheney madness in Iraq participated. The Freeps reports 13 people were arrested and charged with trespassing.

Yours truly had other items on the Friday agenda including checking out the new TV news operation our local Fox affiliate will be offering local TV news junkies starting Monday at 10 pm.

Protest-wise, however, I did swing by what has become a Monday-Friday ritual at the top of Church Street in front of the Unitarian Church. An older bunch of protestors have been "religiously" demonstrating their antiwar feelings Monday-Friday from 5 pm to 5:30. It's an antiwar protest that one of its regulars, author Marc Estrin (with the "got fascism?" sign) told me "has logged more person-hours than any demonstration of its kind."

They started the daily antiwar protest, said Marc, way back before Dubya even launched his Iraq invasion - on September 13, 2001 - more than six years ago.

That's persistence, eh?

Comments

[Brattlerouser]

Peter,

The demonstrations in Willston were inspiring. Good for them.

Check out the action down here in Brattle"crazy." John Nirenberg, a former Dean of my alma mater the School for International Training, is walking from Boston to D.C. to deliver petitions of impeachment to Nancy Pelosi's "jewel encrusted" door. Up to 75+ people gave him a great send off in Brattleboro followed by a "Honk for Impeachment" parade through Brattle"crazy."

http://reformer.com/localnews/ci_7608495

Be sure to check out Nirenburg's website too. www.marchinmyname.org

[jpc]

The problem with protestors is they are overcome with emotion and let reason and logic fly out the door. One protestor quiped that every day the office was closed saved a life. Which is not only innaccurate but naive as well. Other protestor's were quoted as saying they wanted to shut down all recruiting. Now that doesn't even remotely make sense. Yes let's just disband the entire military, we will be so much better off. Now who in there right mind would think that is the answer?

[Brattlerouser]

I think they're inspiring.

[Doug Hoffer]

They most certainly ARE inspiring. Whether you agree with them or not (I do), the sights & sounds of Americans in the streets (especially young people) is the stuff of real democracy.

Writing letters to public officials is one way, but is essentially a private act. Writing a position paper is one way but (for most) it's never read or distributed. Posting on a blog is one way but has a limited audience and little if any impact.

But gathering with neighbors in public to express deep concern over a war - a war for goodness sake - is exactly what engaged citizens should do if their government isn't listening.

Sadly, this war has not generated enough of this kind of activity. No doubt the all volunteer military has something to do with this since young people are not at risk as they were during Vietnam. But I also think the Bush administration's efforts to characterize opponents as traitors has had a chilling effect.

So for me, the actions of these students is welcome and should be applauded. In a country where half the people don't even vote, how can we not feel good about young people getting involved?

[deantv]

Don't worry folks. House democrats are leading the charge to lock those traitors up if they will not sign up for the empire. see ya in gitmo!

Check it out...how quietly this passed....

http://critterology.blogspot.com/2007/10/declaration-of-war-vs-people.html

[JPC]

While their actions in voicing the opinions is admirable as is typical with protestors there reasoning behind it is unthoughtout. Anybody who sits back and takes the time to understand why they are protesting can only come to the conclusion that they lack the ability of basic thought.

Doug you bring up a good point :
"Writing letters to public officials is one way, but is essentially a private act."

If you truly believe in something then you will take the action that is most likely going to get you the result you want. Writing a letter, calling, or meeting face to face with your representitives is that choice. Setting up a demonstration and calling the media to inform them of when and where is more of a publicity stunt. But again I doubt the protestors even realize any of that since there positions are based on emotion rather the reason. There aim is to "inspire" people, not to solve anything.

[Brattlerouser]

>is typical with protestors there reasoning behind it is unthoughtout.

I thought that myself too until I joined in with them and realized these thought were broad-based generalizations. Not only that, but when I raised these kinds of comments, I looked judgemental and sanctimonious... and my perceptions of anti-war protestors were inaccurate to boot.

> Anybody who sits back and takes the time to understand why they are protesting can only come to the conclusion that they lack the ability of basic thought.

I tried that approach too JPC and it doesn't help, for me at least. This is one of the reasons we need "embedded reporting" in the anti-war movement. What we see today is a continuous perpetuation of innaccurate assumptions, stereotypes, generalizations. You'd be amazed how many people I found who do know and have realistic solutions and inspire people at the same time.

As that old saying says JPC, "Before I judge a man, let me first walk a mile in his moccasins." There are MANY in the anti war movement, in Vermont and elsewhere where that base their positions on reason rather than emotion. Spend some time with some of us and you'll be amazed by what you learn. I know I did, because I used to make these same kinds of generalizations just like the one(s) you made above.

[vermonter]

Good points, Brattlerouser.

But a protest against the Iraq war is a protest against the Iraq war, and a protest against military recruiters in high school is a protest against military recruiters in high school. They're mixing apples and oranges, and so are you.

You can be against this war, but not against the idea of having an Army. They're two different things.

Of course, the recruiters should have to be honest with the potential recruits, but that's a different issue.

I'm against this war, because it was a foolish undertaking from Day One. But I believe that as long as we're going to have an Army, kids should be free to choose a military career if they want. I've had several people in my extended family make a voluntary military career, including a couple of uncles who were in the service during the Vietnam War and who were opposed to it. I'd like to think that military careerists like my uncles who were opposed to the Vietnam War had some positive influence on military thinking. At least a little. Not everyone who signs up becomes an unthinking pro-war robot. That is quite obvious.

Protest THIS war. Let the Army recruit. It's a volunteer Army -- nobody is being forced to sign up.

[JPC]

Agreed VTer, that's what I was talking about.

Battlerouser, The protest against the Army recruiters that occured at MMU that set this off, what were those kids protesting? They were protesting the fact that recruiters had their numbers and addresses and were contacting them. They had an opt-out option, but they complained it got lost in the paperwork. OK.........so did my phone bill but I still have to pay it. How can you complain that you didn't pay attention enough to what the school sent out. The other thing: Recruiters having access to private information. Now let me get this straight, they have access to phone numbers and addresses. Lest I'm mistaken that information is public, published in the phone book everyyear, along wiht enrollment. So there is no information given to the recruiters that they don't have access to. How can you consider protester's complaining about schools giving out private information that alas,isn't really private, but in fact public. I can only describe that as unthoughtout.

As for the church street crowd, I stopped even reading the signs when they started claiming that Bush was responsible fro 9/11. Ever wonder why the right refers to them as the "Loony" left. The war in Iraq is war of oil is another good one. Considering we get 20X the amount of oil from Canada as Iraq, considering we get less then 5% of our oil from Iraq and considering the amount of oil we get from Iraq has remained constant for a decade, that statement doesn't make sense either. But if I didn't want to think things through then I would assume, Iraq has a lot of oil, oil is scarce, ergo the US needs Iraq's oil. What's better is the claim that we will go into Iran for their oil.....considering we have a trade embargo with them.

[Brattlerouser]

> they had an opt-out option, but they complained it got lost in the paperwork.

While it's true the military has access to private info and there's an opt-out option "on the books,"it's still not really an opt-out option. Kate Casa exposed that back when she was still at the Vermont Guardian.

> As for the church street crowd, I stopped even reading the signs when they started claiming that Bush was responsible fro 9/11.

Yeah. There's some annoying people behind that movement and I personally don't buy that 9-11 crap. However I have enormous respect for Marc Estrin and it's interesting to see him walk the line for 9-11 truth. So there are some very intelligent people who find some meaning to it. The only thing I would recommend is an independent investigation. I don't think we're getting the full story what happened but I also don't believe it was an inside job.

While it's true we get 20X the amount of oil from Canada, that doesn't mean we wouldn't invade them if there was a tyrant in power. Resources play a part into it, especially since we consume so much of it, have campaign contributors like Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. to take care of. If access to oil is significantly reduced, that could cause major problems for the functioning of business on many levels. So I think there is an element of truth behind the oil argument. In addition, say if Iraq's number one export was olive oil or some other primary good, would we still invade it? Why did they go out of their way to privatize the state run oil companies, if it wasn't about that? something to think about.

[JPC]

Brattlerouser, there is a difference between private info held by the pentagon and public information that is available to the recruiters at MMU. And while I generalize when talking about protestors, you are correct there are some very admirable people out there with valid points that are well thought out. The major problem I have is that those people only make up a very small percentage and the majority follow like sheep invalid and innaccurate reasons because they are emotionally affected by the loss of a loved one for example. It is there right to protest, but I wish they would stop sometimes to come up with logical reasons. I certainly one deny that oil likely played a part in the invasion of Iraq, I just think that one could hardly characterize the war as being soley based on that. There are many factors, not the least being attempting to stabilize the reason for trade, and yes oil. Further, there was also the threat of terrorism from Iraq, interestingly, Clinton (Bill) denying supporting the war has led to numerous interviews where he in fact has repeatedly stated that Iraq and Hussien posed a threat to the US. Which again goes against the idea that Bush misled us intentionally to go to war. Clinton believed it and Bush likely believed that this threat was real, and whether or not it actually was is really only academic at this point.

[Doug Dunbebin]

Hmm. Interesting observations by JPC and Brattlerouser.

Most valuable comments, in my view, relate to the danger in generalizing about a group's or individual's motives and views. (i.e. if you're young and against the war your protest can't be thoughtful, because you support a real 9/11 investigation you must be looney, or because JPC's comments are often consistant with "right wingers" he must be one -- I take him at his word that he's not.)

But since you folks decided to generalize about those of us on the "looney left" who choose not to believe the official "9/11 crap" I wanted to point out that Senator Leahy has stated twice (once on Democracy NOW! last year and again in an interview with Sir Freyne) that President Bush "allowed 9/11 to happen." That opinion is inconsistant with the findings and conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. Some (perhaps not all) of those who call for a real 9/11 investigation would like to understand what Leahy means by "allowed."

JPC, if Leahy means that the President new about the planned attacks and failed to take action to prevent them that this would be an impeachable offense?

If the government knew about the attacks does it mean perhaps the USA PATRIOT Act wasn't necessary because we already had the necessary tools to prevent terrorism? And is it possible the war in Afghanistan (which many believe was to establish the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to bypass Russia and Iran control) and the war in Iraq would have been unnecessary?

Keep up the interesting comments...even if I don't always agree I find them educational.

Doug Dunbebin

[Doug Dunbebin]

Oops. Sorry for not proofing before posting. Here's what I meant to say:

JPC, if Leahy means that the President knew about the planned attacks and failed to take action to prevent them, would this be an impeachable offense?...

...Is it possible the war in Afghanistan -- which many believe was to establish the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to bypass Russia and Iran control -- and the war in Iraq would not have been unnecessary?

[Doug Dunbebin]

...and the war in Iraq would not have been NECESSARY?

Probably why I don't post often ;-)

[JPC]

Doug, while I do share your belief in the idea that generalizations can be very dangerous, you have to. There is a majority and there are exceptions.

To address your points: I have actually never denied being a republican, I certainly am for the most part, I do however support pro-choice. Although, I do take exception to being referred to as a neo con, which seems to be used lately anyone who supports the war, regardless of the founding principles.

First off Doug, I think you are reading to much into Leahy's choice of words "allowed", but honestly if I really wanted to know I would write him. Those who are deeply disturbed by this also want a "real 9/11 investigation". Of course the one that was conducted was certainly real. The problem it isn't what they want to believe and so it must have all been a cover up. However, assuming that's the case and Bush knew there was going to be terrorist hijacking planes and flying them into the twin towers and did nothing to stop it then I think he ought to be hung on the front lawn of the White House. That being said, is it an impeachable offense? Well first off you would have to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, something I don't think could be done, and secondly the question becomes is standing aside and letting something happen legally the same as committing the act? I don't think it is an impeachable offense, but it wouldn't really matter because if Bush didn't resign immediately somebody would assassinate him. But there are a lot of if's and hypothetical's in there, and the 9/11 conspiracy won't ever become anything more then Roswell, or Nessy.

"If the government knew about the attacks does it mean perhaps the USA PATRIOT Act wasn't necessary because we already had the necessary tools to prevent terrorism? And is it possible the war in Afghanistan (which many believe was to establish the oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to bypass Russia and Iran control) and the war in Iraq would have been unnecessary?"

Doug, now I think you are really reaching here. Based on a very loose hypothetical you have tied in several other events that are not even in theory based entirely on the aforementioned event. If the gov't knew about the attacks, well that really depends on what they knew? If they knew an attack was going to occur but not how, then yes the Patriot act is necessary. If they knew about it to the second and did nothing about it? I mean seriously does that even make sense, but to to address your point, I don't think even that null in voids the necessity of preventing any future attacks. As for the wars, well the terrorists in Afghanistan were there and were responsible for 9/11 whether Bush knew about it so yes, that war is still necessary, the war in Iraq from my viewpoint is still necessary as Hussien needed to be removed from power regardless of any events that have happened in this century, but to bring him to justice for the crimes he has committed against his own people as well for his repeated violations of UN resolutions. I hope I have addressed all your points Doug.

Oh and one last thing
". (i.e. if you're young and against the war your protest can't be thoughtful, because you support a real 9/11 investigation you must be looney,"

it's not that your protest can't be thought out it's just that they don't appear to be. Young people are capable of it.....

[Doug Dunbebin]

JPC, I stand corrected. It is "Neo-con" not "right winger" that you've objected to.

>>is it an impeachable offense? Well first off you would have to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, something I don't think could be done, and secondly the question becomes is standing aside and letting something happen legally the same as committing the act?>I think you are reading to much into Leahy's choice of words "allowed",>Based on a very loose hypothetical you have tied in several other events that are not even in theory based entirely on the aforementioned event.>well the terrorists in Afghanistan were there and were responsible for 9/11 whether Bush knew about it so yes, that war is still necessary<<

Ahh, but if the president had prevented 9/11 from happening -- no one in Afghanistan would have been "responsible" for 9/11 since it never would have happened. (Sorry, I just flashed to "It's A Wonderful Life" where Jimmy Stewart sees what would've happened if he'd never been born.) You're not suggesting the American people would have allowed a pre-emptive invaision of Afghanistan if 9/11 hadn't happened? And of course the case for Iraq did rely heavily on the "Osama" connection.

Interesting discussion, I think. I'm convinced the impeachment and anti-war movements are doomed until 9/11 is fully investigated. (And yes, I should have said a credible 9/11 investigation instead of "real")

[JPC]

Doug, I am quite sure that in fact the president knows much more then he states publicly, that's why we have people with high levels of security. There are some things that the general public doesn't and shouldn't need to know. But I don't think that's what you are referring to. As you state both 9/11 and the war on terror were reasons for the patriot act. It seems that you believe that the there would be no need for terrorism prevention if 9/11 had not occurred, I happen to believe that regardless of 9/11 terror is always a threat and needs to be dealt with. There have been repeated terrorist attacks over the past few decades that illustrate that we could not prevent them (bombing of the WTC, bombing our naval ships, etc). However one of the hard things is to judge whether it is really working. If a terrorist attack is prevented, them it is likely we will never hear of it. It maybe that the Patriot Act is working wonderfully. Irregardless, I don't think that the 9/11 events were/are the only reason for the Patriot Act.

As for preventing 9/11, again another jump in your logic. What was whether or not Bush knew about 9/11 has gone to not only did he know about it but whether or not he could have prevented it. And we also have to take into account intent. As you stated with Bush, knowing and not doing anything about is almost as bad as committing the act, so why would that extend to terrorist who attempted to commit a horrific act, but were foiled. The intent was there, the effort of committing that act was there. They had already on two occasions succeeded in lesser attempts. I think you still have to bring them to justice. And again while, the Osama-Hussien was played up, the case could have been made on several other points. I am just curious as to what parts of the 9/11 Commissions report do you find to be incomplete? I have the report, although I admit I have never read it, nor have I really looked into it.

[Doug Dunbebin]

JPC, you and I are probably the only ones reading this now so here goes.

>>It seems that you believe that the there would be no need for terrorism prevention if 9/11 had not occurred>I don't think that the 9/11 events were/are the only reason for the Patriot Act.>I am just curious as to what parts of the 9/11 Commissions report do you find to be incomplete?<<

Here are just a few of the more troubling problems.

1. 25 National Security Experts wrote a letter to Congress saying the Commission's report was seriously flawed due to omissions. Here's their letter. (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-09-13-security.php)

2. Shortly after the attacks FEMA was asked to do a building performance report on ALL of the World Trade Center buildings. FEMA's conclusion about the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47 story building that collapsed late in the day) was that their best hypothesis --that fire brought it down had only a low probability of happening and called for further investigation. The 9/11 Commission Report never mentions the collapse -- see for yourself how similar it looks to buildings brought down as controlled demolitions.(http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html) Six years later and NIST still has not issued its final report explaining the collapse. The omission of this troubling collapse from the 9/11 report is problematic.

3. Journalists from India reported that $100,000 was wired from Pakistan's ISI (CIA equivilant) director to one of the alleged terrorists - Atta. The Commission stated who funded the terrorists wasn't relevant and didn't pursue this in its report.

4. The Washington Post reported that Commission Chairman Kean and other members of the commission stated they believe key Pentagon witnesses misled (some say lied) to the commission. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html)

These are only a few of the problems...

I'll conclude by coming back to the original reason for posting my comments. Too often bloggers generalize or make sweeping assumptions about people, issues and ideas. I wanted to point out that people as "credible" as Senator Leahy have raised questions about the administration's actions both before 9/11 and after -- i.e. why wasn't bin Laden captured in Tora Bora.

It is not "loony" to demand answers to these questions. The fact that the 9/11 Commission failed to answer or fully address 70% of the detailed well-researched questions from family members means the most troubling piece of "9/11 crap" is the 9/11 Commission Report.

[JPC]

Doug,
"and there's evidence the president new as early as August in a daily briefing that Osama was determined to attack using planes. A credible 9/11 investigation would have placed the president and vp under oath to determine exactly what they knew, and when"

Knowing Osama wanted to use planes, and knowing they were going to hijack them and fly them into the side of a building on the morning of September 11th are two different things. As for your second point, I don't think the commission has the authority to interrogate the president under oath. If that is the major problem with the report, then it is a dead fish.

1.) I will look at that letter when I have a chance.
2.) This assertion just makes me want to scream. The problem is although it may actually look like a detonated building, what does a building look like that fell due to fire eating away it's strucutal integrity. Many experts have both backed your theory up, and many experts have refuted it, so it's anybodies guess. But due to a lack of evidence I would stand on the side that doesn't jump to conclusions.

3.) I don't see why a commission focusing on how 9/11 came to pass would think the funding source was relevent either. It doesn't matter if it was funded by Bill Clinton, the relevent parts are that it occured, why and how are the commissions task and what they used the funds for is much more important then how they came by them.

4.)Pentagon officials lied to the commission, well I guess they could have simply told them it was classified. I don't have an issue with our CIA not sharing every piece of knowledge the US has with a commission. Further, those assertions are not and can not be proven.

Doug, I have appreciated the candor and discussion with you. To conclude
"people as "credible" as Senator Leahy"
I don't find Leahy to be a credible person. And, yes generalizing is just that, but since every individual is different you couldn't possibly discuss issues without generalizing. As far as being loony, well that is not my term, however I do find some of the far left's ideas to fit the term quite well. Unfortunately, we differ on a key point regarding the 9/11 report. You seem to be dismayed that not all the questions were answered. I don't believe that every question family members posed needed to be answered. There are some questions that don't have an answer, and some that can not for security reasons be answered. Further I would find it more irresponsible for the commission to put forth speculation just to address a question. It is in my opinion much better to not answer, then to answer with heresay, speculation, and information that is only theory. In short, I find I don't share your opinion in the lack of there being significant information lacking from the report that would warrant a reinvestigation of the events of 9/11. Thanks for the great discussion Doug.

[Andrew Yu-Jen Wang]

George W. Bush’s sentence-by-sentence speaking skills are deteriorating. Apparently, this may be due to a mental illness called “presenile dementia.” Bush may or may not be secretly still drinking heavily. Bush lied, and thousands of people died. Bush suffers from narcissism and megalomania. Moreover, Bush has been arrested three times. Bush was arrested for disorderly conduct. Bush was arrested for stealing. Bush was also arrested for a serious crime—driving under the influence of alcohol. There are reasons to believe that Bush suffers from a learning disability. Bush’s learning disability would explain a lot of things. All in all, Bush is a severely mentally ill individual. Bush is not fit to be the president of the United States.

Anti-war protesters are great.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA