previous post next post  

"Winter Soldier" for Iraq and Afstan.

By The Armorer on January 19, 2008 | | Comments (7)

So, anybody here planning to be the next John Kerry? Or, if being John Kerry isn't your cup of tea, would you like to be present when the next John Kerry "makes his bones" as an ant-war veteran to jump-start a political career? So you can record it for posterity?

Huh?

Anybody want to go to IVAW's Winter Soldier? In the "I got mail" post below this one, "Army Sergeant" made me an ivitation to attend the event. They are looking for bloggers, pro-war, anti-war, pro-military, anti-military, or just bloggers in general who meet the criteria laid out in this post at ActiveDutyPatriot. They're looking for bloggers - especially active duty bloggers, who meet this criteria:

I can almost hear the protestations from here. People are probably readying their typing fingers now, getting ready to blog all about how IVAW will only be choosing their personal favorites, established anti-war bloggers.
If so, I have to say: you could not be more wrong.

We welcome bloggers, regardless of political affiliation or stance on the war

IVAW believes that Winter Soldier will stand on its own merits. We have no need to preach to the choir-we think that this testimony is and needs to be an important part of the dialogue about the war.

Preference will be given first to active duty military bloggers. Active duty military bloggers, regardless of their stance on the war, will have a seat. Active duty military bloggers unable to afford the financial burden of transportation to DC but still wishing to attend, please contact me at sgtivaw@gmail.com . It will next be given to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and following that, all other veterans. This is an event by military and former military, and we want to help as many of you get there as possible.

There will, of course, be some criteria and ground rules. If you are active duty, some are waiverable.

1. This is nonwaiverable: you must not be associated or have endorsed radical violence, in your blog or in person, against idealogical opponents. This is for both sides of the political spectrum and war dialogue. If your words have suggested you will be unable to control and behave yourself with a gathering of your fellow bloggers and/or a large group of veterans with differing political views, you will not be permitted to attend said gathering.

2. You must have an established and regularly updated blog.

3. You must be willing to provide bonafides, particularly at the door, and especially if you claim military service for preference. (Nonwaiverable)

4. Many active duty members and veterans will be attending but not testifying at the Winter Soldier hearings. They are not the news, and they are not fair targets for blog attack. You must be willing to sign a nondisclosure agreement about these people and these people only-that you will not reveal audience members or publish audience words without their explicit consent.

5. Opinions are great. Diversity in ideas is welcome. It is by having the best ideas, not by distorting the facts to match the ideas, that success is possible. You must at least demonstrate the capability for an open mind-and have demonstrated via your blog that you are committed to the factual accuracy, whatever your personal spin.

6. You must have displayed a capacity for making arguments other than ad hominem attacks, and kept personal bile against military members and veterans to a minumum. For entirely fictitious example: saying "Army Sergeant was taken into custody by the police once for animal abuse, thus making all testimony suspect." is fine. "Army Sergeant is a filthy moonbat commie dog-kicker and should burn in hell" is not fine. Remember that whether you believe them or not, whether you believe in what Winter Soldier is trying to accomplish or not, the fact remains that everyone testifying has raised their right hand and swore an oath to their country. Many of them will never be the same again, and some may in fact suffer from PTSD. They do not deserve that kind of treatment.

I admit, I'm tempted. But I couldn't make the entire event because I have a bill-paying-employment travel requirement that conflicts.

Share This Article:

Categories:

7 Comments

By FbL on January 19, 2008 9:38 AM
What's truly extraordinary is that they have no idea how much the name of their little event makes so many peoples' skill crawl as bile rises in their throats.
 
By FbL on January 19, 2008 9:41 AM
Of course, the above description is the mild reaction. I'm desperately trying to control (ignore?) my more intense emotional reactions to the subject. Read the link.
 
By FbL on January 20, 2008 10:21 AM
I'm having a very interesting conversation over at my place with the sender of the IVAW invitation John posts here.
 
By SangerM on January 20, 2008 10:42 AM
Like you said, FBL! I can appreciate the protest effort, but the choice of name shows that these people haven't got a clue what transpired at the original Winter Soldier travesty, nor any sense of the power of words to provoke disdain and disgust--and to instantly alienate a large number of people. With that simple choice, probably thought to be oh-so clever and cool, they have shown they either haven't any idea what they are doing or that they are not really as serious about protesting the war as they are about just making the news. To me, John Kerry was and always will be, at worst, a lying traitor, or at best a rich opportunist padding his political nest with an eye to the future. As well, the original Winter Soldier hearings will always be associated with traitors and liars. For any organization to choose that name as an homage to the originals is like throwing down the gauntlet at the decent, moral people who lived through that era. Of course this assumes the protestors actually know what and who they are honoring... Also, I have a real problem with their insistence on people signing a gag-order (non-disclosure) to protect those folks who are not at the event as witnesses: "You must be willing to sign a nondisclosure agreement about these people and these people only-that you will not reveal audience members or publish audience words without their explicit consent." This ill-reasoned bit of tripe seems to me to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to ensure 1) they have total control over what gets reported (in spite of expected claims to the contrary), and 2) that they and others can say whatever they want without fear of being 'outed,' as long as they don't claim 'witness' status. I suspect this is actually the meat of the concern, and that the other so-called ground rules were tossed in to make this one seem more reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, if a person shows up, he or she is making a public statement one way or the other, and that statement is newsworthy, even if only in the aggregate (as in 25 former members of unit x were in attendance), etc. On the other hand, active duty people are not supposed to participate in this sort of thing (in uniform), and if any of them do, that too is newsworthy and should be reported. Frankly, I find this requirement disconcerting and dishonest. And finally, I hope this event will not be like the original, which will always be characterized in my memory as a circus of sideshow freaks, strident malcontents, dull-witted misanthropes, and the congenitally disaffected. All except for John Kerry of course, who was none of those things. He was just a liar. V/R
 
By Just A Grunt on January 20, 2008 11:08 AM
This last portion over at the IVAW web site makes me very suspicious.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers. From March 13-16, 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because ours is a story that every American needs to hear.
To me it sounds like an attempt to get a large crowd and then use it to show overwhelming support for their side of the story. The restrictions on what can be reported on also seems too restrictive.
 
By FbL on January 20, 2008 12:17 PM
...the choice of name shows that these people haven't got a clue what transpired at the original Winter Soldier travesty. As shocking as that is (considering that they're tying themselves so closely to it), I think you may be right. That has been the underlying theme of the conversation I linked to above.
 
By Ledger on January 21, 2008 3:57 PM
I agree with Just A Grunt – but I wonder if it goes deeper. I wonder who are the actually financial backers of this operation? The likes of CAIR? Or, could they be from an unfriendly country trying to inject agi-propaganda during the political season?