Opinion
The Battalion
Page 7 • Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Bush shouldn't get military vote
Iraq war, refusal to attend soldiers'funerals should haunt him in 2004 election
n May 1, 2003, the sailors of the USS
| Abraham Lincoln were delayed getting
to port after a 10-month voyage because
(resident George W. Bush, who was scheduled
tn make a speech declaring the end of major
imbat operations in Iraq on the aircraft carrier,
ias sleeping. Unfortunately, this incident was
Inly one in a disturbing pattern in Bush’s dis
card for the needs of America’s military.
Jthough most voting members of the military
re expected to support the president in his
election bid this fall, the president has not earned their vote.
Twice, Bush has attempted to manufacture photo opportunities
,ing the military as a backdrop. The USS Lincoln incident,
['hen the president unnecessarily donned a Bight suit and arrived
Jia jet (even though the carrier was in helicopter range), was the
â– rst. Later that year. Bush was shown carrying a fake turkey
while visiting troops in Baghdad during Thanksgiving.
I Preposterously, some soldiers who walked as much as 15 min-
Ites to the Bob Hope facility to see the president and get a
â– hanksgiving meal were denied entrance for security reasons,
Iccording to a letter to the editor in the military newspaper. The
Itars and Stripes. Bush’s visit to Iraq was supposed to be a
iiorale builder for the troops, but how can turning soldiers away
when they come to see you build morale?
I Regrettably, Bush has made even worse decisions regarding
tie uniformed men and women in Iraq, in one case, it has liter-
Hly been a life and death matter. When the war in Iraq was
st irting, only ground combat troops were issued potentially life
saving Kevlar vests. Only now is the Pentagon working to
:t these vests to all soldiers in Iraq, nearly a year after the war
egan. As commander in chief, it was Bush’s responsibility to
nsure that all of the troops in Iraq had these vests, but he
liled miserably.
Last summer. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the
lush administration approved a Pentagon plan to rollback an
icrease in “imminent danger pay” from $225 to $150. A wave
If negative publicity ensued. This included a scathing editorial
by The Army Times on June 30, 2003, titled, “Nothing but Lip
Service,” which stated, “President Bush and the Republican-con
trolled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly-
deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting
cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment
the troops are getting lately.” It was only after receiving negative
media attention that Bush signed a bill that kept the combat pay
raises in place.
The Bush administration has also been malicious when it
comes to veterans’ benefits. In 2003, Bush submitted a proposal
to Congress that slashed funding for a veteran’s health care pro
gram by $1.8 billion. Current Democratic presidential candidate
and Vietnam veteran John Kerry criticized this move, according
to The San Antonio Express News. But he wasn’t the only one,
as several veterans’ groups also criticized the cut. As if his poli
cy decision concerning the military wasn’t bad enough, service
members must suffer the indignity of knowing Bush has not -
and will not - attend any funerals of those killed in Iraq. Some
have argued the president can’t show signs of weakness during
his campaign on terror and attending funerals with large
amounts of media coverage will only encourage more attacks by
Iraqi insurgents.
But this reasoning is weak. It would be better if Bush attended
funerals and delivered the message that the United States will get
the job done in Iraq no matter what. Nonetheless, Bush is willing
to send Americans to die in an unnecessary war but is not willing
to attend any of their funerals. This is a slap in the face to those
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
Despite all this, Bush will most likely be supported by the
majority of military voters. The biggest reason why this is so is
the stronghold Republicans have over U.S. service members. The
Army Times reports that while only one-third of Americans iden
tify with the GOP, a whopping 57 percent of service members
surveyed by The Military Times consider themselves Republican.
And even though the military is increasingly composed of
women and minorities — groups traditionally loyal to the
Democratic Party — even they lean conservative, according to
Salon.com.
Still, military members should seriously consider the actions
Bush has taken in his three years in office. Any honest appraisal
will reveal Bush doesn’t deserve their valuable votes.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
Graphic by Tony Piedra
MAIL CALL
perry's record with
military questionable
I In response to Jon Steed's Feb. 3
Wolumn:
IaII this talk about Kerry being a
supporter of the military is unfound-
H, especially when he aligns himself
lith Jane "The Traitor" Fonda. I com-
â– end Kerry for his service in the
â– etnam War, but his service does not
excuse his actions when he returned
h< me. Yes, he led protests, but what
ycu don't hear is when these soldiers
lat were returning home, Kerry and
VVAW (a pro-communist group)
wt e the ones calling them "baby-
killers" and accusing their brothers-
in-arms of war crimes against the
"innocent" North Vietnamese.
â– He marched down streets with the
Nt th Vietnamese flag at the same
time they were holding the American
Flag upside down. Kerry wrote a book
â– led the "New Soldier" in which the
â– ver has people making a mockery
of Iwo Jima and raising the flag
Bnerican flag upside down. He is
â– spised by so many Vietnam vets
that there is a group that is against
him: Vietnam Veterans Against John
â– rry. He did much more than this;
there just isn't enough room to put it
all Kerry claims to be a staunch sup
porter of the military while at the
me time voting against weapons
thkt has saved military lives, ie. the
F-|l4, F-15 and Tomahawk missiles,
name a few.
hope President Bush wins this
[coming election, but if a Democrat
s to win there are better choices
n Kerry, like Joe Lieberman. With
||ittle research you can find out that
rry met with Liu Chaoying and
aided in the selling of U.S. military
intelligence during the Clinton admin
istration. Bush's AWOL urban legend
has also been proven to be nothing
a myth. The Times reports that
li General who accused him of
I ng AWOL has backed away from
iis story and that The Globe also
’Imbed the story. After a seven-
ononth gap Bush appeared for duty.
What most people don't hear is that
the Texas National Guard allows
guard members to miss duty as long
as they make it up in the same quar
ter, and Bush does so. Take a poll of
military personnel and you will get an
overwhelming majority who are
against him. Kerry is just as left as
Howard Dean. Neither would make
good presidents.
Jason Mooney
Class of 2005
Robinson subjects
himself to criticism
In response to a Feb. 2 mail call:
I find it quite shocking that Kevin
Reilly attacked Holly Coneway’s thor
oughly-articulated, truthful and accu
rate article with such falsities.
Yes, Christianity is about helping peo
ple and accepting them, but that does
n’t mean condoning sinful behavior.
Someone in a leadership position
willingly accepts the fact that they are
to be judged more harshly and scruti
nized more closely because they are
in the public eye. If they are to accept
that position of representing the Bible
and Christ-like behavior, then they
must uphold those morals in every
aspect of their life.
For the reverend to preach on the
evil of homosexuality yet have an
ongoing relationship with another
man is hypocrisy, a trait severely con
demned by Jesus.
If you truly understood the Bible,
then you would know that expecting
Christians to support gay marriages
is quite ridiculous. The fact that
homosexuality is an abomination to
God is not up for misinterpretation. It
is clearly stated, and there is only one
way to understand that. I suggest
before you write again about some
thing so powerful about what is right
and wrong according to the Bible you
do more research first, it’s dangerous
to mislead others as to who Christ is.
Erin Parker
Class of 2003
First Amendment under
attack by city of Bryan
T he sight of protesters each day in front of
the Planned Parenthood clinic on East 29th
Street in Bryan is hardly breaking news.
Each individual has his or her own method: some
hold signs, some pray and some offer alternatives
to those entering the clinic.
Anyone looking closely at those holding the
signs will notice that they are either holding them
up in the air or resting them on their feet. Why?
The city of Bryan now says that having signs on
the ground violates city’s sign ordinance.
Bryan’s code and its enforcement methods have violat
ed the protesters’ First Amendment rights of freedom of
speech and assembly by inhibiting their means of peace
ful protest.
Bryan city officials agree. Or at least they used to.
In a letter that is now public domain dated Feb. 8, 2001,
Michael Cosentino, an attorney representing the city, said,
“... if a protester wants to place a sign in the right of way
for a few hours during a peaceful demonstration, remove
the sign when he leaves for the day and the sign creates no
hazards or obstructions while it is in
the right-of-way, the First Amendment
will not allow the city to apply its sign
ordinance in a way that would prohibit
him from doing so or require him to
wait 14 to 21 days to obtain city coun
cil approval.”
Obviously, something changed, and
it was not the First Amendment. If
forbidding protesters to place a sign in
the right-of-way was unconstitutional
three years ago, it stands to reason
that it is unconstitutional today. It is
ridiculous to think that the constitu
tionality of the issue can change in
such a short period of time.
According to municode.com, the
Bryan City Ordinance says, “It shall
be unlawful to place a sign upon a
public street, public sidewalk, public alley, public right-of-
way, public curb or other public improvements in any pub
lic street or grounds ...” Furthermore, it states that anyone
who is to install such a sign should be issued a permit and
pay appropriate fees.
Numerous exceptions are made to this rule. Among
these are political signs, signs not visible from the street
and hand-held signs.
Cosentino’s letter states that protesters’ signs are anoth
er exemption. However, the city need not make this excep
tion in its ordinance; the First Amendment already guaran
tees it. Cosentino said a handheld sign is equivalent to
wearing a T-shirt that contains a message or slogan. Since
signs touching the ground are prohibited, the protesters
should simply hold them up.
David Bereit, executive director of the Coalition for
Life, said he strongly disagrees. For more than the first
three years that the Coalition protested in front of
Planned Parenthood, there were no problems regarding
the signs. In July 2002, after a story was published by
The Eagle, several police officers appeared at the
Coalition’s next large gathering and ordered the signs be
removed, citing violations of the city’s sign ordinance.
The Coalition complied.
Soon after that incident, a volunteer from the Coalition
for Life drove down the streets of Bryan and counted
dozens of sign violations that the police officers seemingly
failed to notice while driving to order the removal
of pro-life signs.
David Bereit said Cosentino originally told him
that the ordinance enforcement was complaint-
driven. However, when later questioned by The
Battalion about the enforcement policy, he said
that they are partly complaint-driven and partly
issued by officers who notice violations.
The Coalition for Life sent an e-mail on Nov.
21, 2002, to its supporters announcing that a law
suit had been filed against the City of Bryan by the
Coalition and six other individuals. In the e-mail, the
Coalition states, “Since July of this year, the city of Bryan
has ... begun targeting pro-life signs and free speech for
removal from the public right-of-way in front of the con
troversial facility.”
A public example of this occurred last summer when a
protester, acting as an individual, decided to place a flag
flying at half-mast on the public right-of-way. After
Planned Parenthood complained, the Bryan police ordered
that the flag be removed saying it constituted a sign.
The controversy that followed led
to businesses having to remove flags,
and Boy Scouts not being allowed to
place flags out as part of their
fundraiser.
After many citizens complained,
the policy was changed so that flags
can be placed on the public right-of-
way as long as the adjacent property
owner gives permission. Thus, the
businesses and the Boy Scouts were
satisfied, yet the pro-life protesters
still could not put up a flag since
Planned Parenthood refused to give
them permission.
This raises the question: What is
the purpose of a public right-of-way if
the adjacent property owner can regu
late it to some degree? Since today
the city says that the property owner can determine if a
flag can be placed there or not, why not let them decide
who can stand on the right-of-way or not? So much for
freedom of speech. Mark down a win for Planned
Parenthood. Sadly, this scenario is blatantly unconstitu
tional. It is also a reality.
Instead of leaving everything as it was and allowing
flags to be in the public right-of-way as they always had
been, the city changed its policy primarily due to Planned
Parenthood’s complaint. As a result, the Coalition for
Life suffered unjust discrimination.
On Dec. 15, the Coalition for Life and the city of Bryan
presented their case before a federal judge in Houston.
Yesterday, on Feb. 3, the judge declared that since the city
changed its ordinance, it is now constitutional. However,
he failed to address the questions of whether or not rights
were violated before the ordinance was changed and if the
ordinance had been applied unequally against the
Coalition for Life. It is obvious, though, that the ordinance
was originally unconstitutional, otherwise it would not
have been changed.
Hopefully upon appeal the two unanswered questions
will be addressed and the constitution upheld.
Cody Sain is a junior
philosophy major.
CODY
SAIN
Bryan's code and its
enforcement methods
have violated the
protesters' First
Amendment rights of
freedom of speech and
assembly by inhibiting their
means of peaceful protest