Interesting. But wouldn't canceling the Inauguration be a sign of weakness that would only play into the hands of insurgents and terrorists. Come on man, don't you LOOOVVEEE America?
The concept of "sacrifice during wartime" in this country has been given nothing but lip service since WWII. Sacrifice during the Korean War? Vietnam? The first Iraq War? We live in a country that is more than willing to sacrifice its future so that it can be fat and happy in the present. Jonathan A. Cass -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush Check out: http://www.phillyblog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7283 http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10410196.htm Quote: Posted on Tue, Dec. 14, 2004 Editorial | Inaugural Ball Cancel this bash during a time of war Thank you, Claire Gawinowicz of Oreland. Her letter in yesterday's Inquirer made this excellent suggestion: Cancel inaugural balls for President Bush's next term as a show of sacrifice during a time of war. The President would make a powerful statement if he did so. Numerous presidents have shunned them since the first official ball was held in 1809 for James Madison. Franklin Pierce declined to celebrate while mourning the fresh loss of his son in 1853. Franklin D. Roosevelt skipped them during the Depression and World War II. FDR knew the dissonance of holding galas in Washington when the nation's sons and daughters in uniform were fighting in hostile lands. That surely will be the case next month as Bush takes his second oath of office: U.S. forces in Iraq will still be battling (with insufficient armor and other supplies) a surprisingly strong insurgency. No, these parties are not paid for with great stashes of public dollars. Soldiers won't get bulletproof vests paid for with the money saved - unless the private donors want to use their dollars that way. But inaugural festivities have little to do with the substance of democracy. They're all about symbolism. Bush would show a keen sensitivity toward the situation of his soldiers by finally acknowledging that wartime demands true sacrifice - a notion betrayed by his insistence on tax cuts. That symbolism would be far greater than the grandest of balls. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/10402727.htm Quote: Letters | Letters Posted on Mon, Dec. 13, 2004 Cancel inaugural balls President Bush recently told troops at Camp Pendleton that "the time of war is a time of sacrifice" that he wanted other Americans to help military families. Suppose he acts as the chief role model for the country by canceling the inaugural balls and inviting members of military families to the White House for an open house instead. In the same speech, Bush said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked Americans to find some way to help during World War II. I wonder if Bush knows that FDR cancelled inaugural balls in both 1941 and 1945 in deference to Americans fighting overseas. How about it, Mr. President? After all, the time of war is a time of sacrifice. Claire Gawinowicz Oreland In a message dated 12/15/2004 1:15:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Jonathan Cass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I am no fan of Bush and I agree with the concept of using the inauguration >to protest, but would you be saying the same thing if Kerry had won? Our of >curiosity (and not rhetorically), are you aware of any precedent for a >sitting President not having an inauguration during a time of war? > >Jonathan A. Cass >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 1:01 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [UC] Turn Your Back on Bush > > >I can't believe the man we call our President is going ahead with an >inauguration in a time of war. If I can make it down to DC, I will be >participating in this: > >http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org > >Quote: >Posted on Wed, Dec. 15, 2004 >Quiet Protest Planned for Inauguration > >DONNA CASSATA >Associated Press > >WASHINGTON - No buttons, signs or unusual dress will distinguish the >protesters from the thousands who will line the inaugural parade route next >month, but at a set time, they say they will demonstrate against President >Bush - by turning their backs on the chief executive. > >Coupled with the widely expected pomp and pageantry of a presidential >inauguration are demonstrations by protesters angered by Bush's policies, in >particular the war in Iraq. > >Getting ready for Jan. 20, 2005, various groups are using Web sites, >e-mails, fliers and word of mouth to urge thousands of demonstrators to >gather in the nation's capital. > >Among planned events are an anti-war rally and three-mile march to the White >House, a massive bike ride similar to those that disrupted traffic in New >York City before the Republican National Convention, and a "die-in" to >remind the nation of more than 1,200 U.S. dead in Iraq. > >Through the Web site www.turnyourbackonbush.org, organizers are urging >demonstrators to leave political buttons and placards at home, join other >parade-goers on the afternoon of the inauguration and then, as Bush's >motorcade passes, show the president their backs. > >"Turning your back is as old as authority itself," said Jet Heiko, a >Philadelphia-based protest organizer. "It's a very understandable symbol for >defying authority." > >On its Web site, the group called it a unique action because "we won't know >who is participating until the moment it begins." > >The DC Anti-War Network is organizing a rally and march to the White House >on the morning of the inauguration, getting the word out through the Web >site www.counter-inaugural.org/, which says, "Bush isn't going away, and >neither are we." > >The violence in Iraq was one reason more than 100,000 protesters filled New >York City streets on a Sunday morning in August before the Republican >convention. Organizers of the inauguration protests expect stronger feelings >toward the war to persuade thousands to travel to Washington next month. > >Heightened security, January weather and the calendar - the inauguration >falls on a Thursday - are certain to limit the numbers. > >In 2000, additional officers from the Metropolitan Police and other law >enforcement agencies kept order, and no major confrontations occurred and >only a handful of people were arrested. Security is expected to be even >tighter for the first inauguration since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. > >Four years ago, protest organizers capitalized on strong feelings over the >disputed election, which had barely subsided, and the timing inauguration >fell on a Saturday. This year's election was settled weeks ago, on Nov. 3, >when Democratic Sen. John Kerry called to congratulate Bush. > >Still, organizers hope to attract a crowd. > >"We got 80 percent of people to protest the Republican Convention in New >York in the last week," said Jim Macdonald of the DC Anti-War Network. > >ON THE NET > >Official inaugural Web site: http://www.inaugural05.com > >Protest organizers: http://www.turnyourbackonbush.org > >Protest organizers: http://www.counter-inaugural.org > > >---- >You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the >list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see ><http://www.purple.com/list.html>. > > ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
