Nonpartisan. Support the troops, and those who we've lost.

[heidi]

From MoveOn.org:

In the past four days, clashes with Iraqi insurgents have claimed the lives of 17 American soldiers. With these deaths, we mark a grim milestone: over 1,000 military men and women have now died in this misconceived war.

Their caskets have been hidden from view, and the President won't visit their graves. And this morning, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld diminished their deaths by calling the toll “relatively small.” But it is now time for us to publicly recognize the sacrifice these soldiers have made, and to demand that our leaders serve those in harm's way better in the future.

Tomorrow night at 8pm, we're joining with the Win Without War coalition to hold hundreds of candlelight vigils. Gathered together silently in towns across the country, we'll reflect on this terrible moment and honor the fallen. And by focusing attention on the dead, we'll help pressure our national leaders to get us out of this mess.

Can you host a vigil? It's a small commitment of time -- you just need to identify a good location and pull together some candles and printed materials for attendees. To sign up to host a vigil, go to:

http://action.moveon.org/vigil/newmeeting.html

If you can't host, we welcome everyone to attend a candlelight vigil tomorrow night. You can search for one near you at:

http://action.moveon.org/vigil/

865 soldiers have died since President Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished." And yesterday, top Pentagon officials told the New York Times that "insurgents controlled important parts of central Iraq and that it was unclear when American and Iraqi forces would be able to secure those areas." The attacks are increasing, the death toll is rising, and there's no exit strategy to get us out.

In the moments before the war in Iraq began, Win Without War and MoveOn members gathered in thousands of vigils around the country and the world to make a plea for peace. As of this morning, 1,003 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq -- along with tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and hundreds of soldiers from other countries. It is time to come together again. We'll gather with candles, representing our mourning for those who have died and our hope for those who still live.

We all support our troops. We hope that they all return safely to the waiting arms of their families and loved ones. But hiding the caskets of the dead does not honor the men and women who are in harm's way. It is time to recognize them, and tomorrow night, we will.

I have already committed to an inaugural meeting for an event I'm working on early next year, but we will pause at eight to remember all those wonderful lives that have been lost, and support those who've returned (including my brother in law), those who are there still and those who have yet to go.

Feel free to gack

Comments

[nihaochan.livejournal.com]

*sigh, knew this was coming - ;) no, its not that bad*

We all support our troops. We hope that they all return safely to the waiting arms of their families and loved ones.
Amen.

But I just don't like the mix of politics with supporting our troops.

And one last thing. Is this:
865 soldiers have died since President Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished."[bold = mine] referring to the banner on the Air Force carrier, or...? Because the banner was put there by the crew. I don't remember anytime when Dubya ever said "mission accomplished" but I could be wrong.

[katiemorris.livejournal.com]

Their caskets have been hidden from view, and the President won't visit their graves. And this morning, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld diminished their deaths by calling the toll “relatively small.” But it is now time for us to publicly recognize the sacrifice these soldiers have made, and to demand that our leaders serve those in harm's way better in the future.

I did not know their caskets had been hidden from view. That is appalling. I'm so sorry. This war can never be won. All we are doing is prolonging the suffering of innocents. And your troops and ours (Brits) are being treated just like cannon fodder. To prove a point for our respective governments. Blair and Bush should be ashamed of themselves. I will think of you on your vigil tomorrow.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Would you have preferred it if the Move On email had said "since President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq have ended"? Because that was the title of the May 1 press release from the White House.

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003

President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Event Backgrounder
The President Visits the USS Abraham Lincoln

Also, in October 2003, Bush said the following in a press conference when asked about the banner:

I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.

You can also read this bit from ABC News from October 30, 2003:

JOHN SHOVELAN: And today the President's Spokesman Scott McClellan admitted the sign was made by the White House's Communications Office.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: We were more than happy to do so because this is a very nice way to pay tribute to our sailors and aviators and men and women in the military who are on board that ship for a job well done.

JOHN SHOVELAN: The White House employee who created the banner is a former television producer, renown for creating sophisticated backgrounds for the President with his political message of the day.

REPORTER: Are you denying now that the President had the state intention at the time of that speech that Americans would see that picture and think the mission in Iraq has been accomplished, the overall mission?

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: The idea for the banner and the idea for the sign was suggested by those onboard the ship and we were pleased to help them with that.

So while it's been stated that the idea for a banner came from those onboard the ship, Bush also has stated that the ingenious advance men on his staff were involved, and McClellan has also stated that the White House Advance Team was involved in the creation of it, and the placement of it. So, while the banner may have been put there by the crew, it was done with guidance by the White House, according to the White House's own statements.

[no-remorse.livejournal.com]

And yesterday, top Pentagon officials told the New York Times that "insurgents controlled important parts of central Iraq and that it was unclear when American and Iraqi forces would be able to secure those areas."

Today... is really the first I am seriously starting to wonder if the Iraq war can be won by any definition of the word.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

What saddens me is that the President did visit the grave of Australia's only Iraq war victim.

The fact that the Australian government failed to notify the man's widow and newborn daughter of the visit is our problem.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I suypport the troops, but this is so obviously partisan, you can't call it non...

(Plus, MoveOn.org? It's a 527 financed by George Soros.)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Why is it obviously partisan? I don't understand what you mean by that. There's no party affilliation or designation, thus it's nonpartisan. There are, in case you didn't notice, many Republicans and many conservatives who are disgusted by the current administration who are troubled by the number of dead in Iraq, and who feel that those we've lost deserve commemoration.

And while Soros has given a few million to MoveOn, I consider him to be a newbie in the MoveOn-verse. I've been a MoveOn member since September, 1998, when I saw an article about the email sent by Wes Boyd calling for Congress to censure President Clinton and move on with governing the country. While I respect George Soros, his contributions to MoveOn are dwarfed by the donations that have been made to MoveOn since 1999 by ordinary people and by other millionaires. It's also a heck of a lot less than Richard Mellon Scaife has given to right-wing organizations to fabricate claims against Clinton and Teresa Heinz Kerry, among others.

I don't understand the right-wing venom and libel against George Soros at all. I mean, I do understand why there's hatred for him, the same way I understand why those on the left hate Scaife - it's not unreasonable to hate someone who disagrees with your worldview, although it is a bit tacky. But I don't understand why people find it necessary to libel those they disagree with. It just takes things far too far.

Oh, and why not try and reduce your animosity towards MoveOn by thinking of them as "the organization that Heidi's cousin is doing a slew of concerts for next month" instead?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Well, of course your cousin is an excellent character witness for moveon.org. All the same, they are part of the anti-Bush campaign. Which, you understand, I think is a perfectly valid expression of the democratic process. It's just that it is partisan, no two ways about it - it's its raison d'être.

And I fail to see any "venom" if I say that Soros funds them (as well as a great chunk of Kerry's campaign - at last count, over $300 million.) Perfectly legal and democratic: I'd be very uneasy if only one party, whichever it was, was getting all the big money from the usual suspects billionaires.

I have actually met Soros a couple of times, one before he became truly famous (he was already a celeb on Wall Street, which is why I was meeting him, as a financial journalist.) I found him brilliant, but a little inclined to believe himself infallible, which of course nobody is; not to mention that his business theories are a little cuckoo ("reflexivity"? Please.) I saw him again in the early 90s when I was covering Eastern Europe, where his foundation was extremely generous and ambitious, not always with complete discernment (but again, easy to say with hindsight.) What was nauseating was the crowd of fawning hangers-on and courtiers yes-Sahib'ing him from early morning to late night. Everybody wanted a piece of him - I saw some Oxford dons (this was in London) doing a pretty cringe-making number, presumably hoping for him to endow a chair or a library or some such thing. I'm pretty sure this is the norm with most billionaires, but he didn't seem to object to it at all, which gave off a weird vibe. Again, I was doing what every interviewer does - flitting in and out of someone's life for a couple of hours, and drawing conclusions, or at least impressions, from rather limited data. All I can say is, good and cool judgmement? Didn't quite strike me at the time. (But I'll agree that I don't think Richard Mellon Scaife has either.)