Iraq, Iraqis "Wouldn't Exist Anymore"
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
As Governor of Texas, the Presidential hopeful warned us. If we were to select him as Commander-In-Chief he would not send mixed messages. Americans might have read George W. Bush's lips. Pressure would be applied in abundance. A thousand points of light illuminated the path the then possible Chief Executive proposed. Yet, no one wished to believe a prominent person, the son of a former President of the United States could be so cruel. Certainly, a candidate to the highest office in the land would not suggest that he would be happy to start a war while he worked to win the support of American people. Yet, there it was, in the smirk, in the statement, in the glint seen in the eyes of Governor George W. Bush. The date, January 16, 2000, one year and four days before the ready and willing combatant placed his hand on the Bible and recited the Presidential Oath of Office.
Americans entered a new age; the second millennium had just begun. Yet, the people had learned little from hundreds or thousands of years of history. While tuned into television, citizens did not need to read between the lines. The future President spoke directly of his intent. Journalist Wolf Blitzer heard the words and reiterated. Perchance, the Broadcaster, too shocked by a truth he thought awesome, offered the then candidate a chance to redeem himself. George W. Bush cognizant of how his words might be thought cocky, endeavored to lessen the concern, somewhat; however, he remained stalwart.
The words were ominous, they, the Iraqi's, would not exist any more. They hung in the air. Yet, people wanted to believe, as President, George W. Bush, (or whomever) would protect them. The public chose to suspend disbelief. With blind faith, supporters of the candidate followed their leader. Those who did not endorse the aspirant did not dare to fear the unthinkable. They thought they would or could "trust and verify." Few imagined the impossible would be their unwelcome truth.
Nearly two years later, circumstances afforded Mister Bush an opportunity. The September 11, 2001, attack on the Twin Towers allowed the former Governor, then President, to say, the world changed. However, in truth, while the people's perspective may have been transformed, the views George W. Bush expressed twenty-one months earlier were as they had been. The Chief Executive's sense of reality was static.
Commander-In-Chief Bush is consistent. As documented, at least since January 2000, Mister Bush intended to eliminate what he decided was a threat, Saddam Hussein, and the country known as Iraq. The harangue was heard and George Bush would stay the course.
George W. Bush Opines on His Presidential Candidacy;Blitzer: It's almost exactly nine years since your dad, the president of the United States, accepted a cease-fire with Saddam Hussein in Iraq in exchange for full Iraqi agreement to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. But for the last year, there have been no weapons inspection teams in Iraq at all. If you were president today, what would you do about it?
Bush: I would continue to keep the pressure on the Iraqi government. I would continue to insist that inspectors be left -- allowed into the country. I would continue to insist that Iraq complied with the cease-fire arrangement.
Blitzer: But they're in violation of the agreement right now.
Bush: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we shouldn't be sending mixed signals. And if any time I found that the Iraqi's were developing weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't exist any more.
Blitzer: Who wouldn't exist, the weapons?
Bush: The weapons of mass destruction, yes. I'm not going to -- they just need to hear that from a potential president, that if we catch them in violation of the agreement, if we in any way, shape or form find out that they're developing weapons of mass destruction that there will be action taken, and they can just guess what that action might be.
Blitzer: And you're not going to spell it out here today?
Bush: No, sir.
Ah, but he had shared the details. The candidate crafted a message and then, in the midst of the interview thought better of being so blatant. Perhaps, this election season, the American people might ponder the past. Citizens could consider pronouncements are portals. When the public listens to our current crop of Presidential challengers might the people acknowledge that a politician has power to change more than a policy. Lives will be altered with the stroke of a Presidential pen.
This time, will our countrymen contemplate the messages delivered when a Presidential hopeful is away from the persuasive scripts? Might Americans accept commercials do not reveal what is within a heart and soul. Stump speeches do not reveal authentic intentions.
Let us listen when a potential Commander offers his truest calculations. When a candidate speaks of possible combat, have faith. He or she will engage. If the same hopeful honors a citizen's right to bear arms, believe him (or her). Suppose surveillance is the subject. A potential President that promotes a need to spy on those he or she thinks may be terrorists will follow through. Holidays from taxes that build a healthy infrastructure, once proposed, will be part of the ultimate plan. When a presumptive Chief Executive claims he or she will reduce the cost of Health Care Insurance and yet, does not establish a means for better access to affordable medical coverage, realize, he or she will not provide an avenue for those who struggle with what is. What of energy, education, the environment; perchance Americans might acknowledge, no matter the issue, a person, a potential President will reveal him or herself in subtle ways.
Americans might follow the money, the man, and the woman. People, no matter their station know what they need to say and when. A hopeful President indebted to industry will not forget their allegiance, just as George W. Bush never forgot his. Loyalty to family, friends, and financiers leads many a Commander to combat or a multitude of convenient truths.
All actions begin with a thought. Words are windows into a being. Be assured; if an aspirant muses of what he or she "might" do, trust they will. Defensively, details may not be forthcoming before the position is secured. Nonetheless, once the keys to the White House are in hand the world will change to fit the new office holder's reality, when indeed he or she actually has not evolved.
Sources For Statement of War, or Peace. We, the people decide . . .
- Presidential Oath of Office. Inauguration.
- George W. Bush Opines on His Presidential Candidacy. Cable News Network. January 16, 200
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 7, 2008 at 09:44 PM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Elections, Iraq War, Political Campaigns, Presidential Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Impeachment Off The Table; On Center Stage
Article I: Initiation & Continuation of Illegal War (Part 4)
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
John Conyers put impeachment on the table. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said to place such a ‘distraction’ on the table is tantamount to treason. Newly appointed, anointed Pelosi let it be known, there was business to be done and Democrats would do the deeds she deemed necessary. These did not include prosecution of the President or his Vice. Hence, Conyers removed censure from the agenda He had other concerns. His own appointment as Chair to the Judiciary Committee hinged on whether he honored the wishes of the recently selected Speaker.
Thus, Congressman Conyers declared . . .
No Rush to Impeachment
By John Conyers Jr.
Washington Post
Thursday, May 18, 2006; A23As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.
But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to -- and actually read by -- decision makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated.
We need to know the extent to which high-ranking officials approved of the use of torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment inflicted upon detainees. We need to know whether the leaking of the name of a covert CIA operative was deliberate or accidental, as well as the identity of those responsible.
The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner.
John Conyers professed we need answers. He forgets there was no evidence of wrongdoing against Richard Milhous Nixon until an impeachment investigation was underway. Most mused those in opposition to the Vietnam war wanted the President out. However, as Elizabeth Holtzman, a member of the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon proceedings writes much is the same and more differs. Subversion is similar. Evidence is now more abundant. Our own neglect may be our downfall. Perhaps, past disregard for Democratic principles allowed for the eventuality of what we see today. If we forego our responsibility to democracy again, what might occur in the future? Let us assess what we know.
Subverting Our Democracy
A President can commit no more serious crime against our democracy than lying to Congress and the American people to get them to support a military action or war. It is not just that it is cowardly and abhorrent to trick others into giving their lives for a nonexistent threat, or even that making false statements might, in some circumstances, be a crime.It is that the decision to go to war is the gravest decision a nation can make, and in a democracy the people and their elected representatives, when there is no imminent attack on the United States to repel, have the right to make it. Given that the consequences can be death for hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people--as well as the diversion of vast sums of money to the war effort--the fraud cannot be tolerated. That both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were guilty of misleading the nation into military action and neither was impeached for it makes it more, not less, important to hold Bush accountable.
Once it was clear that no weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, President Bush tried to blame "bad intelligence" for the decision to go to war, apparently to show that the WMD claim was not a deliberate deception. But bad intelligence had little or nothing to do with the main arguments used to win popular support for the invasion of Iraq.
First, there was no serious intelligence--good or bad--to support the Administration's suggestion that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cahoots. Nonetheless, the Administration repeatedly tried to claim the connection to show that the invasion was a justified response to 9/11 (like the declaration of war against Japan for Pearl Harbor). The claim was a sheer fabrication.
Second, there was no reliable intelligence to support the Administration's claim that Saddam was about to acquire nuclear weapons capability. The specter of the "mushroom cloud," which frightened many Americans into believing that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for our self-defense, was made up out of whole cloth. As for the biological and chemical weapons, even if, as reported, the CIA director told the President that these existed in Iraq, the Administration still had plenty of information suggesting the contrary.
The deliberateness of the deception has also been confirmed by a British source: the Downing Street memo, the official record of Prime Minister Tony Blair's July 2002 meeting with his top Cabinet officials. At the meeting the chief of British intelligence, who had just returned from the United States, reported that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." In other words, the Bush Administration was reported to be in the process of cooking up fake intelligence and facts to justify going to war in Iraq.
During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, I drafted the resolution of impeachment to hold President Nixon accountable for concealing from Congress the bombing of Cambodia he initiated. But the committee did not approve it, probably because it might appear political--in other words, stemming from opposition to the war instead of to the President's abuse of his warmaking powers.
As Commander-In-Chief, President George W. Bush has used his influence and then some. He initiated, investigated, incited, inflicted, and inflated, all in an attempt to do as he desired. Americans sat idly by, as did Congress. Little has changed other than we know more about the manipulations. Today, the table turns, tilts, or is hidden from view, and the Speaker continues to hedge.
Thankfully, The Culture Project and Presidential hopeful, Congressman Dennis Kucinich move forward. The potential President Kucinich works tirelessly to ensure that censure is more than an option ignored. Kucinich brings the issue to the floor of the House in the form of a priveledged Resolution. The Culture Project takes the matter to center stage.
Naomi Wolf, Jackson Browne, Lewis Lapham, Phoebe Snow, Michael Ratner, Bruce Fein, and Sam Shepard are among the many scholars, artists, and activists that ask Americans to authentically consider A Question of Impeachment.
This series is meant to inform and inspire great minds, those that have been fast asleep for too long.
The masses once actively participated in government. Long ago, the media investigated and spoke to sources outside the White House. Now, each hibernates, and the Administration obstructs justice. The Constitution was torn to shreds. Habeas corpus is no more. Executive Powers are infinite; although, apparently, according to the Vice President there is no Executive Branch under Bush.
As Americans sit silently, absorbed in apathy . . .
[The] Culture Project brings crucial and timely concerns to the fore once again with a new, unique series that gathers some of the most brilliant and visionary minds of our time to explore and debate the case for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
You may wish to review the full impeachment schedule, or tune in for just a few discussions. The forum begins and ends in the month of December. Might we, the people work as quickly in support of the Constitution or will we continue to ignore the provisions that ensure no President has, uses, and abuses absolute power?
Sunday, December 2 12:00 p.m. A screening of special cuts of New Home Movies from the Lower 9th Ward, Oscar-winner Jonathan Demme's new documentary drawn from the stories of residents of New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.Monday, December 3 7:00 p.m. Article III: Criminal Negligence and Hurricane Katrina. Participants include attorney Bruce Fein, journalist Lewis Lapham, actor and activist Alec Baldwin, New Orleans public housing organizer Sam Jackson, Judith Browne-Dianis, from the Advancement Project, and Tiffany Gardner from the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative. Performers include Bobby Cannavale, Callie Thorne, Tracie Thoms, Denis O'Hare, Jodie Markell, Bradley White, Nana Mensah, and Chris McKinney.
Sunday, December 9 7:30 p.m. Vanessa, Lynn, Corin, and Jemma Redgrave make a very special appearance to read Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak, a collection of poems written by detainees held in the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Marc Falkoff, attorney and editor of Poems from Guantanamo, will also be with us.
Monday, December 10 7:00 p.m. Article IV: Warrantless Surveillance. Participants include former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, attorney Joshua Dratel, attorney Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Aziz Huq of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice, and journalist Richard Valeriani. Performers include Kristen Johnston, Michael Mastro, Nana Mensah, Gerry Bamman, Chris McKinney, and Sarah-Doe Osborne.
Sunday, December 16 CLOSING DAY 2:00 p.m. Article V: Expansion of Executive Power. Participants include Harper's contributor and human rights attorney Scott Horton, author David Lindorff, and attorney Marjorie Cohn. Performers include Josh Hamilton, Tracie Thoms, Ned Eisenberg, Grace Zandarski, and Tom Bower.
7:30 p.m. Closing celebration includes performance and commentary from John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment, Jackson Browne, Jorie Graham, Naomi Wolf, Duncan Sheik and Steven Sater, Peter Matthiessen, Kathleen Chalfant, Aasif Mandvi, and others.
Perchance, after each performance you, dear reader will reflect and realize, the time is now. You may be encouraged to dream what some think absurd. I invite you to explore. Before you venture out on Election Day certain January 2009 is your last hope. Please consider there are possibilities more profound and perhaps, if we are to preserve the Constitution, necessary.
Sources and Censure . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 28, 2007 at 09:00 AM in 'Regime Change' , Bush 43 Administration, Congress and Bush, Impeach GW Bush, Lawbreakers, Lies, United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Climate of Fear Permeates; Morton High School Students Protest
Climate of Fear
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was a quiet day in America; yet, the feeling of fear was palpable. Oceans away, in Baghdad, the air was filled with the smell of napalm. Frightened, as the young contemplated their future, seventy some courageous and committed students filed into the Morton West High School cafeteria in Berwyn, Illinois. Trepidation for their lives, and the lives of friends, family, and those innocent Iraqi citizens they never met prompted these pupils to take action. The young and eligible enlistees protested the war in Iraq.
Years earlier, dissent against this unjust battle was unthinkable. The Twin Towers fell. The Pentagon was hit. Other buildings were threatened and the nation panicked. America could not comprehend there might be blood shed on the tranquil shores of their homeland. Citizens were willing to do anything to ensure no more lives would be lost in the land of their birth. If it meant countrymen must sacrifice their freedoms, so be it. Immediately, Congress was called into session. Bills were passed and liberties lost. America was attacked; and thus, we were at war.
Theories were bantered about. Osama Bin Laden, the enemy behind the assault, was in Afghanistan. Terrorists were within our country. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The thousands killed on September 11, 2001 were just the beginning. Certainly, we must know as a continent, North America is no longer safe. Air travel has opened all borders. Trains, boats, and planes were no longer means of transport. These are potential missiles.
Acquiescent, the American public believed they were not safe. Yet, fearful as the people were they knew this country must come together and show its strength. At ground zero a crowd stood and chanted, "USA, USA!" The Commander-In-Chief took the bull by the horn or the bullhorn and calmed the throng. He said . . .
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"
It was then that the former friendly fellow, the man that had failed in most all of his business ventures, the son of a President whose success was said to be tied to his name, appeared decisive. The President, placed into the Oval Office by the Supreme Court, not by the people, became the protector. From the moment Bush stood on the mound of rumble and raised his voice, Americans followed his lead.
George W. Bush led his Secretary of State astray. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with what Bush and Vice President Cheney knew was not "solid" intelligence. The Commander prompted his Cabinet to lie to Congress. The President's pal and Attorney General told a nation the Rules of the Geneva Convention are quaint. Our leader authorized torture. He trolled telephones. President Bush took us to the airport and asked us to take our shoes off. He read our library records and convinced us there was reason to forfeit our rights. The President of the United States played on our fears and we accepted his truths. Americans became apathetic and perhaps pathetic.
However, just as in years past, when an unpopular war was sold to the American public, when a threat [then communism, now terrorism] loomed large in the minds of those told to fear the youth responded, Morton High School's young scholars decided they must speak out. They entered the dining hall, a nook in the cranny of a huge building, a place where pupils often feel, or felt able to break from bureaucracy. For students, the canteen is considered a safety zone. Every high school has one, a place where pupils can relax, chat, gather, and forget the fears that flank them in the halls, and stalls of academia.
Yet, on this day, November first, All Saints Day, and a national day of peace, the lunchroom furnished no refuge. Apprehensive Administrators swooped down on the young scholars as they exercised their democratic right to free speech. Frightened school officials did just as a petrified President had done. Under the guise of informed authority, the Superintendent and Principal imposed retaliatory measures.
As is often true in a climate of fear, the terrified meet the terrified, and the trouble begins. When filled with fear a person in a powerful position does not wish to show his or her weakness. Thus, they adopt a punitive posture to appear in control; George W. Bush, Superintendent Ben Nowakowski , you decide.
The Berwyn School District bureaucrats selectively singled two-dozen students for expulsion. [Might these individuals be as those sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison, or off to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records, for interrogation.] Morton West, Morton High School District 201 Superintendent Nowakowski told parents, pupils involved in the protest that are seventeen years or older would also face police charges. [Ah, those of a certain age may be as the persons of Middle Eastern descent. People in power think it just to profile agitators.] High achievers, athletes, and those whose parent are well connected were exempt from the more severe penalties. [Frequent fliers, white businessmen, and little old ladies . . .perhaps these persons are above reproach.] Indeed, school officials telephoned many prominent Moms and Dads and warned them. Take your child home. Be sure your son or daughter returns to class. Cease or dismiss.
The injustice was obvious; even mothers and fathers were distressed. Parents questioned School Board members and Administrators. They asked, what have we as a people become when we suppress speech, suspend dialogue, and arrest those that assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, after all these years of war and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were, the adults realize they too must question authority.
Parents and students say that penalties were too harsh -- and unfairly dispensed -- for some of those involved in the protest. More than a dozen parents at the meeting in the Morton East auditorium told the board that students who play varsity athletics or have a high grade point average were given less stringent penalties.Maniotis said her daughter Barbara, a junior at the high school, participated in the protest but was given a 5-day suspension and does not face expulsion because she is an honor student with a 4.5 GPA. Other students received 10-day suspensions with the possibility of expulsion.
"She did the same thing they did," Maniotis said. "This entire incident is outrageous. The school missed out on a wonderful teachable moment. Instead, they cracked down on them right away and turned it into a punitive situation."
Parents have said they want their children reinstated and the penalties removed from their records.
However, the Board and the Superintendent chose to exert its power. The community gathered thousands of signatures in support of the students. Parents, neighbors, concerned citizens met with authorities and stated, the punishment for protestors is too harsh. Those in power argued the point. School authorities might have said, "We do not torture." Waterboarding, while repugnant, is just in "real life" situations.
School officials also sent a letter to the parents of all the school’s students calling the protest “gross disobedience” and reminding parents that any disruption to the educational process could lead to expulsion.
Disobedience and dissention must be deterred. There can be no distractions. Our mission is clear. If we are to accomplish our goal, all threats must be eliminated. Presidents and Principals, Secretary's of State and Defense and Superintendents remind us, we have reasons to fear. This is the "age of terror."
Americans know by now, as we accept our telephones are tapped, any time we question authority we are in insubordination. Countrymen chuckle on reflection as they ponder, I almost got sent to Guantanamo. We are anxious regardless of what is real, for in truth, reality is perception. As long as we perceive a threat, there is one, and those in power will act in accordance. Innocents will be sent to [Guantanamo Bay] prison without due process.
Morton High school Principal, Mister Lucas was fretful despite of what occurred or did not. The protesters, pupils were extremely peaceful. They did as they were told to do. Law enforcement officers observed all went well. Nevertheless, fear flourished amongst Administrators.
[S]everal students said the protesters, whose numbers had dwindled to about 25, obeyed the administration’s request to move from a high-traffic area in the cafeteria to a less-crowded hall near the principal’s office. There, they intertwined arms, sang along to an acoustic guitar and talked about how the war was affecting the world, said Matt Heffernan, a junior who took part.“We agreed to move to another side of the building,” Matt said. “We also made a deal that if we moved there, there would be no disciplinary action taken upon us.”
Matt said the group had been told that the most severe punishment would be a Saturday detention for cutting class that day.
Police officers were on the scene, and Berwyn’s police chief, William Kushner, said no arrests were made. “It was all very peaceful and orderly,” he said.
But at the end of the school day, Matt said, Dr. Nowakowski gave the remaining protesters disciplinary notices stating that they had engaged in mob action, that they were suspended for 10 days and that they faced expulsion.
The sense of being actively involved in the community and in the civic process is weighty and can be woeful. As a Morton High School student stated; upon reflection he had "feelings of confidence — of a job well done." However, faced with expulsion he also embraced anxiety "and fright, because my whole educational future is at risk.”
Education for American students is at risk whether they protest the war or not. As the battles in the Middle East intensify, our youngest citizens watch expectantly. Currently, they are not forced to take up arms; yet, the cost of an advanced degree, the expense of living on your own, salaries, or more accurately, practically speaking, minimum wages threaten the security of a young mind. Military recruiters know this, as does the Administration, local and Federal. Armed Forces representatives maximize on the fear and the White House blesses such actions.
The practice began just after America surrendered itself to permanent apprehension. The Twin Towers fell and so too did the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was set aside in favor of the Patriot Act. The Commander-In-Chief of the United States, George W. Bush proposed we leave no child behind. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Mister Bush garnered support for a initiative that would change the lives of young Americans forever. The "Education" President signed the measure and a new military force was born.
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."
The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."
Slights or the restricted right of entry seemed odious to pro-war Congressman Vitter, a man too young to have fought in a foreign battle. Attitudes such as his may helped build a system of recruitment that expanded our military defense. Prior to the initiative that allowed military representatives to sell their schpeel to High School students interest and investment in America's youth was not equally distributed. Nor is it now. The difference is, under current law, military recruiters can more easily find men and women willing to enlist. With thanks to No Child Left Behind the armed forces can focus on those most in need. That is best. After all, the affluent have opportunities that ensure economic and academic success. The rich are less likely to enlist.
[I]t appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
The kinds of people that are targeted are poor or lower Middle Class. Plebeian families will sacrifice their progeny disproportionately. Morton West High School in Berwyn, is nestled in a working-class suburb just west of Chicago. Soldiers dressed in uniform, don sparkly metals, and wear shined shoes as they stroll the halls of this blue-collar neighborhood school campus. They smile and sweet-talk eager teens. Recruiters befriend students and promise them a bright future if they enlist. In part, this helped to provide perspective for the pupils and prompted the protest.
Disabled Gulf War veteran Cesar Ruvalcaba, dressed in his military uniform, chose to lash out at military recruiters allowed to roam the halls of the school."Shame on the administrators who think receiving military money from recruiters is more important than the education of their students," he told the board. "I am 100 percent disabled, and I learned the hard way that education, not carrying a machine gun, is the key to success. It's those people who are pro-war who would never drop everything and go fight for the red, white, and blue. These kids should receive extra credit for speaking up, not expulsion."
Morton High School students are not alone. After years of subjection, some schools are fighting back. Administrators have decisively stood up for their students. Principals refuse to be part of the Bush regime or relegate academics to expulsion. Principals ask whether funds from No Child Left Behind provisions are worth the cost, the lost of freedom.
Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.
By Dean Paton
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 2005Seattle - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.
The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level . . .
High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.
Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."
All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.
Perchance, Americans no longer wish to live a life in fear. Our countrymen finally decided to vote for change. However, it did not come. Now the children take up the cause. Perhaps they will be more successful. With the support of their parents, the impossible may be probable. Indeed, it is, slightly.
Last evening, the Superintendent of Berwyn Schools released a statement. [On the same day some troops are slated to return home to American shores, not because the President heard the people say exit Iraq, but because, physically, they could no longer remain in battle] suspended students could and would return to class. School records will not reflect, peaceful rebellions as a dishonorable reason for discharge. Although Administrative faces are saved, it is important to consider that this is a step. We may move closer to educational experiences and further from a culture of fear. One can hope.
I offer the link for your perusal. Please read the Superintendent's proclamation. Please share your thoughts, quietly. Remember class is in session. Recruiters may still be listening and the Bush regime remains in office.
As you, dear reader, breathe deeply and ponder the protestors' plight, might I submit, alls is not well; nor did this situation truly end well. Granted, the students will be reinstated. Those that wish to pursue a military career will, and those that do not, will not. However, there is more to this story. Power plays; those that instill fear, fear not. Even when we think the Authorities care; they are concerned, and will no longer abuse, use or manipulate, we discover they continue to do as they have done.
Eight million veterans got their education thanks to the World War II GI Bill, which covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.Unfortunately, the current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. In fact, they cover only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college. Our veterans deserve better.
A new GI [Government Issue] Bill is being crafted in Congress. However, Americans have reason to think this too shall not pass. If we the voters learn from the Morton High School students and state what we think, perhaps, veterans will have the chance they were promised . . . that is if they live to return home.
Let s fear no more. Americans cannot sit silent. If you wish to communicate to your Congress Person, please do. The time is now.
Help Veterans Continue their Education.
Sources of Fear; Culture of Care. . .
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01