They're Building Your Monument, Mr. Bush
Comments
Seems like they're getting started on it a bit soon if We the People are planning to stay and fix what the wingers broke. Sadly, I suppose we're just going to leave the failed state in civil war and pull back to our new bases that'll feed the Arab wingers' hate. I guess they might as well get started honoring the thouands who have and will die before we finally give up the winger insanity and actually combat terrorism.
Hopefully that will be sooner than later.
I must object to the headline attached to the photograph of the in-progress veterans' memorial (to the extent I am entitled to object - your website, publish what you want).
In the last election cycle, I strongly disapproved of direct use of September 11, 2001, references in political campaigns. Most of those references were made by Republicans. Many people died in an attack on our country and I felt it was disrespectful to attempt to make use of that for political gain. I draw a clear distinction, which I think most people also understand, between "tough on terrorism" talk and September 11-evoking talk.
Similarly, I stongly disapprove of use of Iraq-Afghanistan veterans' memorials to criticize the current administration. Most of these references, I presume, will be made by Democrats. Those people died in service of our country. We should keep the memorials as a monument to them and their sacrifice, devoid of any political background which may exist. I don't mean to suggest that the current administration is immune from criticism - I just think that there are many other avenues to do so.
I agree with Mr. Beecher that it is odd that we are memorializing so quickly. Memorials are supposed to be in memory of something. Assuming that the marker in question is to be an Iraq and/or Afghanistan conflict memorial, neither conflict is finished yet.
If the memorial under construction is an Iraq/Afghanistan marker (a reasonable assumption), the dates present some questions to me.
Does it read: Iraq, 1990-1991 or Iraq, 2003 or Iraq 2003 or Iraq 2003-? or Iraq 1990-?
Then how does one incorporate Afghanistan: Afghanistan, 2001 or Afghanistan, 2001-? Is this listed separately from Iraq or together? Or does the relatively small scale of Afghanistan demote to Panama or Grenada-like status?
Reasons, I think, why it is best to memorialize after the fact. The overall picture is often not clear while events are occurring. Presumably, a few years after these conflicts end, we will have a better picture of the start and end events.
You have a good point, Steve, and it made me think. But I'm not sure that invoking 9/11 to justify the President's policies, on one hand, and invoking veterans' memorials to indict Bush, on the other, are as similar as you see them. Yes, both remind us of tragedy to serve a rhetorical purpose. But the 9/11 attacks are demonstrably not related to many (most?) of the purposes they are invoked to justify, whereas dead American soldiers are factually related to the President's decisions. It's the endless return to the 9/11 attacks as a justification for unrelated anything-and-everything that I find offensive about them.
I have no idea why they're putting this memorial up so soon. I suppose they'll put "War on Terror" on it, rather than the name of an action in a particular country.
"In the last election cycle, I strongly disapproved of direct use of September 11, 2001, references in political campaigns. Most of those references were made by Republicans."
And strongly supported the war in Iraq and voted for Bush. How's that working out?
It was perfectly acceptable to reference 9/11 when invading Afganistan because it was, well actually related. Just like talking about dead soldiers relates to decisions, votes cast, and statements made.
Being "mean" to soldiers disrespecting them some how (alive or dead) is bad. However using emotional images is not. Images and emotions stay around long after the facts have faded (for most people).
Refusing to use them, while the "other team" does nothing BUT use them (Note to Steve Rebulicans are STILL constistently using that imagery, you are using the wrong tense) is foolish and irresponsible.
Just my two cents.
I honestly don't see the disrespect here. I feel terrible for the loss of the people who died and were horribly injured during the attacks on 9/11, and I feel just as badly for the losses of people in Iraq. I will continue to criticize and hate the bastards in Al Qaeda who caused the first deaths and criticize and hate the bastards in our government who caused the second deaths. In neither case am I impugning the memory of the fallen. Rather, I believe that by talking about who is responsible and working to bring them to justice one day I am honoring those victims.
And just for the record: Even though those people died in the service of their country and admirably honored their obligations by following their orders (even though they were poorly-thought-out if not illegal orders), I'm pretty sure they'd want the people responsible for their deaths called out.
On a related topic, I also don't understand how recognizing that Iraq is a hideous national mistake dishonors the sacrifice these people have made. It only dishonors the bastards who dreamed it up during a winger fugue and perpetrated it on us all. The average soldiers on the ground did their best in an untenable situation. I think everyone recognizes that, especially those of us who are filled with white-hot rage that they were so callously discarded.
Also: Politics is as politics does. You can't spend 5 years trying to manufacture another Cold War and Red Scare and not expect it to come back and bite you in the ass when it turns out there's nothing much to it. When we finally, actually, eventually do what the 9/11 commission recommended to get our country properly defended against terrorist threats we will honor the fallen far more than attacking unrelated nations, destroying out military, and telling people the shut up about it.
With an inference and a couple searches, I found the proposed memorial, complete with pictures very similar to Mr. Tidball's.
The documents are located at http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/council_packets/Reports_040406/CC_8b_040406.pdf. Apparently approved by the Glendale City Council this past spring.
The proposal did in fact address the country and date issue on which I speculated.
"Protecting Our Freedom: For Freedom is not Free!" (Their exclamation point.)
Wow. That language, along with the timing of this monument's erection, makes me geniunely uncomfortable.
Mad propz for your mad search skillz, though, Steve.
Content and design ©2001-7 Jeff Tidball