Thank you to all who have served or are serving in the military. I may not agree with where or why the wars are fought but I still think you are brave.
These are photos I took back in the day (about a year ago) when I had time to work as a buddy photographer. Rain had fallen on these flags.
I'm linking to some conservative Web sites to let them know that the suggestion that anti-war is anti-troops is basically bogus. It was hard, though, to hold my tongue at this blog about a stupid fight over whether it's OK to have a peace display. I'll restrict my response to two sentences. The writer suggests there should be no peace movement during war and says, 
La Shawn Barber and other blogs are collecting Veterans Day links.So perhaps we should restate our point here. This is the day that we honor the men and women who serve and have served our country.
This is not the day that we celebrate honoring and providing aid and comfort to the enemy that would replace our freedoms, including the freedom of dissent, with sharia law.
Whatever happened to respect, duty, honor, and service to one's country, most especially, in a time of war?
My response: Whatever happened to respecting the diversity of opinions and the right to free expression? If dissent should be silenced during war, how democratic is that?
Addendum: This response, when posted on my blog, generated this response:
Gee, we appreciate you linking to our post, and we are certainly always willing to accept criticism. But from one set of bloggers to another, you seem to be a bit selective over what you choose to use for bolstering your agenda. We see from your post:
Article comments
1 - Howard
If I were a Muslim insurgent in Iraq watching the statements by members of our legislature calling for ceasation of military action and a withdrawal of troups, I would take heart. My thought would be, "these guys are about to give up. Hang in there just a little longer. Strap on a few sticks of dynamite, murder a few more of their 'boys' and we'll have this country all to ourselves. Then those insurgents who are still alive can initiate our plan to irradicate all Jews and Christians from the face of the earth, just like our mullah has instructed us to do."
If that's not a direct quote, it's close. How can you defend "decent" with the knowledge of what equivication will do to those serving in the military?
Howard
2 - Michael
Veterans Day should be the day we chose WAR as a last resort. To not endanger the precious sons and daughters of common American people.
How dare Mr. Bush on veterans day attack those who have every right to criticize his decision to lead us into a war of choice. Mr. President, you alone were giving the authority to deal with Saddam Hussein, force if necessary.
Did you know that he was not an imminent threat? I bet you did. Did Mr. Cheney funnel the information that eventually got into congress hands? I bet you did.
How about next time, give weapon inspectors 30 more days to complete their work, which would have shown that everyreason you gave to congress to go to war was flase, every single one.
Next time take every bit of judgement and diligence you have in your mind and soul before you send our sons and daughters to war!
We are there now, and we all support our troops, those who say otherwise are ignorant. But i do not one more solidier to die for the mess you have created...how dare you make a speech like the one you made.
3 - Eric Olsen
very reasonable and well done Scott, and I have zero doubt your regard for our troops is sincere.
I can see both sides of the "criticism during wartime" debate, but will always ultimately come down on the side of free expression. Dissent forces a constant honing and reformulation of plans and approaches that otherwise might not be made.
Best wishes troops
4 - Dave Nalle
If I were a Muslim insurgent in Iraq watching the statements by members of our legislature calling for ceasation of military action and a withdrawal of troups, I would take heart. My thought would be, "these guys are about to give up. Hang in there just a little longer. Strap on a few sticks of dynamite, murder a few more of their 'boys' and we'll have this country all to ourselves.
And in fact, that is EXACTLY what Al Qaeda leaders have said in correspondence which has been made public. They're counting on the weakness and divisiveness in America to undermine our war effort and ultimately give them victory.
Dave
5 - Eric Olsen
and the determination not to let that happen is still the administration's greatest strength
6 - Michael
Dave,
I have seen posts from you over the past few months, and you seem like a rational, reason based thinker.
With that said, how can you support 1) this speech, and 2) this president.
He is a failure domestically and abroad. Just because he did something about Saddam does not make him a stronger leader, in fact it is proving his ineptness to handle the situation. And through this speech, he tries to blame "whining democrats" on why it is going so bad...Mr. Bush, have a little backbone!
The biggest shock of my 30 year lifetime is that the american people did not fire this guy last november. But we I believe a large portion that voted for bush were afraid we would be attacked, not if but WHEN! Also, gay people are a sure sign of armageddon.
He had about 3 good months after 9/11, the country was unified, the world was at our backs and a terrorist haven was being dismantled. But before 9/11 and since the beginning of 2002, he has been the worst cheif executive there has ever been.
Please make even a short list of what he has done right...do not include tax cuts, please. And also, don't include the no child left behind, his recent energy plan to donate money to the larger oil companies, clean skys initiative and medicare reform.
7 - Dave Nalle
"I have seen posts from you over the past few months, and you seem like a rational, reason based thinker."
I try, but no one can be entirely objective about some of these issues.
"With that said, how can you support 1) this speech, and 2) this president."
1) It's a damned fine speech whether you agree with it or not. It has actual substantive content and addresses issues in detail, which is something you don't see all that often in political speeches, and it lays out the president's positions very well, whether you agree with them or not.
2) I'm relatively neutral on the president. I think he's done a couple of good things a lot of incompetent things and a couple of bad things. He's certainly failed me on most of the issues I care about. But I still speak out in his defense on a regular basis because I find those who attack him far more reprehensible and offensive than he is. He's a mendacious mediocrity but ultimately I think he's well intentioned - he may not be doing a good job, but he does have the best interests of the nation at heart. Many of those who oppose him are a lot more effective than he is, but their objectives are actively hostile to the welfare of the US.
"He is a failure domestically and abroad. Just because he did something about Saddam does not make him a stronger leader, in fact it is proving his ineptness to handle the situation. And through this speech, he tries to blame "whining democrats" on why it is going so bad...Mr. Bush, have a little backbone!"
On this one issue I agree with him. The democrats have behaved despicable over the Iraq war and have proven themselves to be completely corrupt and untrustworthy.
"The biggest shock of my 30 year lifetime is that the american people did not fire this guy last november. But we I believe a large portion that voted for bush were afraid we would be attacked, not if but WHEN! Also, gay people are a sure sign of armageddon."
I don't know anyone who thought we were in any real danger of being attacked in 2004 - that period had already passed by then. The reason people voted for Bush is that the democrats nominated someone who was tranparently just as venal and incompetent as Bush, but also clearly subscribed to a politically extteme philosophy which he had suppressed but which people assumed would resurface if he ever got into office. All the democrats had to do to win was nominate someone more honest and believable than Bush and they managed to find one of the few people who wasn't.
"He had about 3 good months after 9/11, the country was unified, the world was at our backs and a terrorist haven was being dismantled. But before 9/11 and since the beginning of 2002, he has been the worst cheif executive there has ever been."
Hardly. I've been over this before, but there are at least a handful of presidents who were unquestionably more incompetent.
"Please make even a short list of what he has done right...do not include tax cuts, please."
Well that ruins my fun, since tax cuts and tax reforms are the main thing he's done right.
"And also, don't include the no child left behind,"
No, I'm not a fan of unfunded mandates.
"his recent energy plan to donate money to the larger oil companies,"
A massive misrepresentation of this program - you've been listening to the propaganda of the left. The energy plan is one of his big successes and includes more support for alternative and renewable energy than any prior energy bill.
"clean skys initiative"
Another program the left has misrepresented and tried to tarnish unfairly. It's the first substantive step forward in clean air legislation since the 1970s.
" and medicare reform."
Not a fan of this one either. It goes entirely the wrong direction.
Well, you've ruled out his few successful programs. Not exactly fair to ask me to say something nice about him and then forbid me to mention any of his actual successes.
IMO tax reform and tax cuts are the single most important issue he could have addressed during his administration. The fact that he has counts a lot against all the other failures and quasi-failures.
Dave
8 - Michael
Dave,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. If only this was the actual way political points could be discussed, with respect and civility.
I may use some "leftist" talking points on energy and clean air, but their is some truth to them.
The energy bill should have been heavily weighted to alternative energy, and I would guess it is a very small portion when you look at the fine print.
The clean air act is very pro-business, our wonderful environmental stewards. The administration claims the air is getting better, but that is because from the 1970 to the start of bush's first term, we were cleaning the air. I would think by 2009 we may see a decline in our air quality and republicans will blame it on president obama.
9 - Dave Nalle
I too would have liked an energy bill even more weighted to alternate energy, but this one does give more support to alternate energy than any previous legislation. And the total amount isn't small at all. Take a look at the summary of the bill on Wikipedia - lots and lots of alternative energy tax breaks and rebates and such.
As for the Clean Skies act, it doesn't reduce any standards - and increases many - it just doesn't do as much new regulation as some people wanted.
Dave
10 - htom
There is a huge difference between the existance of a "right to dissent" and choosing to exercise that right while the enemy is shooting at us. The former is something part of the reason I went into the miliary; the latter seems to be an demonstration of foolishness, at best.
I wouldn't have voted for Bush if you'd nominated someone like Lieberman. Mr. Kerry I remember, from when I came back to the world, and ... never mind.
11 - Scott Butki
Eric and Michael: Thanks.
Howard and Dave and HTOM, we may have to agree to disagree.
I think if we ask people to censor their thoughts during wartime then I think the terrorists HAVE won because we are no longer acting as a democracy.
HMOT wrote:
"There is a huge difference between the existance of a "right to dissent" and choosing to exercise that right while the enemy is shooting at us. The former is something part of the reason I went into the miliary; the latter seems to be an demonstration of foolishness, at best."
By that logic nobody could speak against Vietnam during that war and nobody can speak against this war even though Bush has said it may not be a war that can ever truly end.
So it's great that we have the right to express dissent but we can only exercise that right during non-war years?
Just as I recently wrote I don't remember Martin Luther King's speech having a clause saying he wants to end discrimination "unless you're Republican," regarding Michael Steele,
I don't recall the First Amendment having a clause saying "right to free expression... except during war time."
Do you know something the writers of those words didn't?
12 - htom
I'm not going to claim any great insight; I'm merely observing that waging a second front when the decision has been made looks to me to be a bit foolish. That in this country -- thankfully -- you're allowed to do so doesn't mean that I have to agree with you, or that I should encourage you, or that I should refrain from laughing at you.
13 - Dave Nalle
Scott, don't throw me in there on the censoring of thoughts or speech. I'm against both. I don't think anyone, even president Bush in his recent speech, is suggesting that people don't dissent. All I'd ask is that they lay off the absurdly partisan spinmongering and stick to valid criticisms.
Dave
14 - Maurice
Dave/Michael
I've read your posts and appreciate the civility of your disagreement.
I agree with the idea of free speech and right to dessent. I believe the KKK have the right to free speech. I just don't like it when they march on MLK day.