1
   

I Still Don't Get How Anti-Bush = Unpatriotic

 
 
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 02:39 pm
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2958368

Quote:
Rocky's call to protest Bush makes vets see red

Mayor's e-mail: 'Nothing radical,' supporters say
By Glen Warchol
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson called for "the biggest demonstration this state has ever seen" to protest President Bush's appearance Monday before a national veterans convention.

"This administration has been disastrous to the country," Anderson said Friday. "If people could organize and speak out in an effective manner from the reddest state in the country, that would garner a lot of attention."

In an e-mail Wednesday to about 10 activist leaders, the maverick mayor of Utah's capital called for a diverse demonstration to greet Bush when he speaks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the Salt Palace Convention Center. The mayor plans to join the protesters.

"There should be a collaboration of health-care-provision advocates, seniors, the [gay, lesbian and bisexual and transsexual] community, anti-Patriot Act advocates and other civil libertarians, anti-war folks, pro-Social Security advocates, environmental advocates, anti-nuclear-testing advocates, and anti-nuclear-waste-shipment-and-storage advocates," the mayor wrote in the e-mail.

The mayor's message drew a howl of outrage from Mike Parkin, senior vice commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars Atomic Post 4355 in Salt Lake City.

''Excuse my French, but - that son of a bitch!'' he said. "It makes the mayor look very, very unpatriotic. It makes him look despicable."

Parkin said such demonstrations, particularly against the Iraq war, give comfort to America's enemies and will be particularly offensive to the 13,000 to 14,000 veterans gathering at the convention.

"I voted for the son of a bitch and I'll never vote for him again," said the Vietnam War veteran.

Anderson disagrees with that measure of patriotism.
"Patriotism," the mayor said, "demands that people speak out when we see our government officials acting in such anti-democratic and deceitful ways to the people of our country."
He also said: "I don't understand people simply blindly going along with the sort of deceit and utter cruelty of this administration. It's not just we have the right to speak out, but we have the obligation to speak out when we see misconduct on the part of the government. The most patriotic thing we can do is stand up against the misuse of governmental power."

Craig Axford, co-chairman of the Utah Democratic Progressive Caucus, said Anderson's encouragement of demonstrations is appropriate.

"I don't think there's anything untoward or radical about that," said Axford, an organizer of a peace rally planned for Pioneer Park, three blocks from the convention center. "For people who appreciate the mayor and appreciate his politics, obviously it will boost our event."

But Joe Cannon, chairman of the Utah Republican Party, said Anderson's encouragement of protests against the president was improper, though typical of the mayor.
"What do you expect? It's Rocky. Clearly it's intended to smack the president. As the mayor of the host city, it's at best untoward."

Cannon thinks the e-mail will only help the Utah Republican Party.

"It's not the worst thing that can happen to remind the people of Utah the kind of things Democrats nationally stand for."

Anderson, who is scheduled to make welcoming remarks to the conventioneers, says veterans will understand. "The veterans of foreign wars are heroes in my view. To stand up against government misconduct is in no way expressing a lack of support for those who defend our country."

Even though Utah gave Bush his largest margin of victory of any state in the 2000 and 2004 elections, Anderson, a Democrat, wrote in this e-mail: "Don't let him come to Utah and not see huge opposition, even in the reddest state! This would send such an important message."

"A tepid response will just send a message of apathy and resignation. Let the Bush administration - and the world - hear from Salt Lake City!"

Meanwhile, peace activists already were gearing up for the president's visit. Erin Davis, a veteran who opposes the war in Iraq, predicted at least 1,000 anti-war activists would begin gathering in Pioneer Park early Monday. The demonstration will be joined by a national group of military families who oppose the war.

Anderson plans to participate at Pioneer Park demonstration against the war and is scheduled to speak.

Axford described the rally at Pioneer Park, from 11:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., as a "pro-peace rally." It isn't being held near the Salt Palace, where the president will speak, because organizers didn't want to make the convention attendees feel unwelcome, the mayor said.

"We didn't want to invite any kind of confrontation. We wanted to focus on our positive message."

That message, Axford says, is: "We'd just like [the president] to explain and justify this war in light of the fact so much of what we were told we were fighting for clearly we weren't fighting for."


I admire what the Mayor has done in calling for peaceful protests during the presidents visit.

I still don't get how protesting the war in Iraq is unpatriotic or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Protesting the invasion of Iraq is NOT the same as not supporting our troops or honoring veterans of previous wars in my view. And protesting the Iraq invasion does not mean also being against the war in Afghanistan.

Can any conservatives explain this for me? How is it unpatriotic to protest the Iraq war and demand that our president answer for the misleading information that was given regarding a need to invade Iraq?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,277 • Replies: 42
No top replies

 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 02:50 pm
i'd like a pragmatic explanation as well. and if one is forthcoming, i won't do any sniping on this thread. :wink:
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 02:50 pm
When people serve, particularly if putting their lives on the line, they tune out facts in favor of emotion. Otherwise, they may be forced to end up acknowledging it was for nought.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 03:36 pm
But anti-Bush does not equate to unpatriotic.

Difficult as it may be to believe, conservative does not necessairly equate to pro-Bush. Not unless conservative has come to have whole new meanings in the past 15 or 20 years.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 03:50 pm
roger wrote:
But anti-Bush does not equate to unpatriotic.

Difficult as it may be to believe, conservative does not necessairly equate to pro-Bush. Not unless conservative has come to have whole new meanings in the past 15 or 20 years.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 04:12 pm
Well, I think you have it in a nutshell, Roger.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 04:31 pm
Actually, Dys and I discussed this very same issue.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 04:42 pm
Was it here on A2K? If so, would you provide a link. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 04:55 pm
Did that mention Taft republicans? I remember that, would like a link too.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 05:02 pm
As far as I can see, to be anti-Bush is to show your patriotism. Patriotism = love of one's country. Bush and his minions have done more damage to this country than alQaeda. I can understand Mike Parkin's anger at having his pet project disrupted by the mayor of his home town. But in calling Mayor Anderson "unpatriotic" he is mangling the English language.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 05:10 pm
ANTI-BUSH=PATRIOTIC (this is the new equation. In the end the old one did not add up)None of our leaders are representing the people so we have to represent ourselves.Thats why demonstrations are getting bigger, better and getting support from more respectable sources. More and more everyday people are going because they are not being heard anywhere else.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 05:49 pm
Sorry, InfraBlue. It was a few weeks ago when I was in Albuquerque. Some conversations seem to work better in person, anyway.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 09:43 pm
I am a bit reluctant to post this but what the heck. Isn't this one of the sings of fascism? Of course that assumes the academic who is pushing those 14 indicators of fascism knows what he's talking about. But when the person and state become one it's on the path. I am reminded of one of the Bourbon Kings, can't remember which one, Set will know though - "l'etat, l'etat c'est moi!" Or something akin to it.

Of course it's not unpatriotic to demonstrate against a President or a Prime Minister for that matter, they're not the state, some of them are not even statespersons, they're just temporary politicians. The state exists separate to them. They will pass, the state will go on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:22 pm
That was Louis XIV. In the introduction to his biography of Louis XIV, the French biographer Hillaire Belloc compares Louis as a monarch to Franklin Roosevelt (then the newly elected President of the United States) as a monarch. M. Belloc in so doing displayed an ignorance of the way the American political system works. Within a few years, Roosevelt was complaining of the "nine old men" on the Supreme Court who struck down much of his legislative program.

However, i do think it apposite in this case. For the fanatical supporters of the Shrub, criticism of him equates with lèse majesté. The vehement anger of his supporters at critics of his policies seems to me very much in the vein of suggesting that this equates with a treasonous attitude. Certainly Bush is no monarch, but his attitudes, telling Tim Russert in an interview that he will not change his ideas regardless of public opinion, have all the attributes of monarchical attitudes.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:32 pm
goodfielder wrote:
I am a bit reluctant to post this but what the heck. Isn't this one of the sings of fascism? Of course that assumes the academic who is pushing those 14 indicators of fascism knows what he's talking about. But when the person and state become one it's on the path. I am reminded of one of the Bourbon Kings, can't remember which one, Set will know though - "l'etat, l'etat c'est moi!" Or something akin to it.

Of course it's not unpatriotic to demonstrate against a President or a Prime Minister for that matter, they're not the state, some of them are not even statespersons, they're just temporary politicians. The state exists separate to them. They will pass, the state will go on.



I think the theories of monarchy/state were different under Louis - the state was, in many ways, him, in those days.

But - to the present.

I agree - the current thinking presented here by the right re protest/patriotism is scary. (I presume it is echoed by many right folk in the population of the US generally)

Even Howard deliberately made the point that disagreeing with the war, for instance, was fine - but asked that it not be personalised against Australian troops - so different to the awful rhetoric of a number of the right here.

Overall, I think Oz less scarred by patriotism than the US, and this was a good example.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:41 pm
I don't suggest that Bush has monarchical power. I don't suggest that he aspires to monarchical power. I do suggest that he evinces a monarchical attitude. One at least one occasion as governor of Texas he stated that there was a need to be dictatorial in his office. In publicly expressing his intention to use "faith based initiatives," he stated that he would act dictatorily in that instance, as it was required. He does not abide criticism, he doesn't not want to see or hear dissent, and he is pig-headed about his policies, saying that he won't change his mind because of public opinion. I think that in many ways he believes that he is the state.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:53 pm
I - sadly - agree.

I think he suffers from Nixonian grade isolation.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 10:56 pm
Good analogy. I rather suspect that he lacks the intellectual discernment to understand a criticism of style which would refer to an "imperial presidency."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2005 11:24 pm
Hmmmmm - I am reading John Dean's book on Bush.


I agree, he prolly wouldn't.

I wish these people WERE more literate and informed.

I, like Dean, cannot believe it is all happening again - only worse.

Sigh.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2005 07:59 am
I was certainly hoping for someone that agrees with anti bush = unpatriotic to step in and explain.

Maybe they can't. Maybe they don't know how. Maybe they know they are wrong?

No takers?

I
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » I Still Don't Get How Anti-Bush = Unpatriotic
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2024 at 10:15:38