Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It's Veterans Day, the day we honor those who fought in wars. Unless, of course, they're against the war in Iraq, then they can just shut up like the commie pinko bastards they clearly are. You don't get to take part in a Veteran's Day parade if you're against the war:
Iraq veteran Jason Lemieux might not be marching in the 11th annual Long Beach Veterans Day Parade on Saturday.The Marine, who served three tours of duty in Iraq and is now against the war, was hoping to march as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a national organization that calls for immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq.
The group's application, however, was rejected last month because of its political views, parade coordinators said.
Here's the best part:
After reviewing each group's mission statement, the Veterans Day Parade Committee, a non-profit group that organizes the event, voted unanimously to reject the application, said parade coordinator Martha Thuente."They do not fit the spirit of the parade," she said. "The spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done. We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq."
Parade coordinators work hard to keep the event free from politics, Thuente said.
"We're not allowed to take a political stance."
Guess what, lady? You just did take a political stance.
Comments
Note that there is no mention where these clowns get their funding. I'd be for cutting them off the public teat.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 13, 2007 9:42 AM
While I think that all veteran groups should be able to march in a veterans parade, how is it a political stance to bar all politically oriented groups from marching?
Your commentary does not seem to match with the facts that you provided. Are there some other facts that you did not present?
Posted by: Mike | November 13, 2007 9:43 AM
So it's "ungrateful" to allow veterans who disagree with Dear Leader to march in a fucking parade? What kind of sad, pathetic excuse for a republic are we, to allow our public discourse to be dragged so low, by such shameless morons?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 13, 2007 9:44 AM
I would think veterans who actually fought in said war would be the ones to listen to the most.
Posted by: llDayo | November 13, 2007 10:35 AM
Yeah, this doesn't anger me at all. One of the few benefits of getting shot at should be that no one gets to tell us what form our patriotism is to take. Certainly not some self important committee chair who has likely never fired a weapon in fear.
Posted by: Josh | November 13, 2007 10:47 AM
Um, Mike...supporting the current war in Iraq is a political stance. A veteran is simply one who has seen service in one of our armed forces. Therefore, by imposing the requirement that parade participants support the war, the parade organizers have imposed their political stance on participants. Better?
Posted by: PuckishOne | November 13, 2007 11:12 AM
Legalities aside (this coming from a lawyer), how would you all react to "Veterans Preserving This Christian Nation," "Veterans Against Killing Unborn Babies," "Aryan Nation Veterans," or our personal favorite "Veterans Exposed to IED's Because God Hates Homos," marching in that parade? (Just asking) My take: there is often a line between what is legal and what is appropriate. This is a parade to honor veterans and their service to our country. Marching to support a particular viewpoint is likely to piss off others marching in the parade or attending to honor the veterans. Many of you will say "so be it, we live in a diverse society with free speech." I agree, and I will always fight for the right to express dissent in our country, but there are better forums to express that viewpoint in my humble opinion.
Posted by: Lawdog | November 13, 2007 11:54 AM
Puckishone,
Like I posted in my original comment, maybe there are some facts that were not presented. But nowhere does it say that the committee imposed the requirement that the parade participants support the war. From the facts that were presented, there were only 2 imposed requirements.
1. That it be veterans.
2. That no political advocacy be part of the march.
Posted by: Mike | November 13, 2007 12:12 PM
Mike, Martha Thuente is quoted as saying: "They do not fit the spirit of the parade. The spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done. We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq."
Doesn't that imply a general pro-war stance for the entire march?
Posted by: Josh | November 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Josh,
No, that quote implies a support the veterans, non political advocacy stance. This seems like a reasonable request.
If the march becomes politicized, there will be groups opposed to the way and groups supporting the way. Then, what gets lost is that the march is supposed to be only about honoring veterans. That is why the requirement seems reasonable.
Posted by: Mike | November 13, 2007 12:33 PM
This is a parade to honor veterans and their service to our country.
The vets who are members of that group (Iraq Veterans Against the War) served their country. There is nothing to suggest they sacrificed any less in combat than veterans who are not members of the group. They deserve as much honoring as any other vets.
That being said, you're point is well taken. Maybe certain viewpoints are more appropriate elsewhere and this parade is not a place for inclusiveness and they deserve honoring here as vets but not as members of that group. I think the thing that bugs me is that the organizers probably wouldn't have any trouble with "Veterans Preserving This Christian Nation" marching...the spirit of the march seems to be that its great to honor veterans as long as you don't say anything against any of the conflicts that they've participated in. Perhaps it isn't possible to honor them without tacitly taking that position, maybe the two cannot be decoupled...but it...I don't know...rubs me wrong for some reason. Maybe it doesn't make any sense but there are those of us who will wear combat patches while simultaneously not being happy about the theater of operations in which they were earned. I don't know...I'm going to have to think about whether or not holding that position is internally consistent.
Posted by: Josh | November 13, 2007 12:40 PM
Mike, I guess that would work as long as it were non-conflict specific. I'm not sure I've seen events that qualify. It seems to me people are always identified with where they were deployed.
Posted by: Josh | November 13, 2007 12:50 PM
I am also underwhelmed at the injustice here. I'm willing to give Martha Thuente the benefit of the doubt and believe she would have also banned "Veterans for Bush" or some such group. When she made the statement about "advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq" she was talking about a particular group, so it's not evidence of bias.
Posted by: Taz | November 13, 2007 1:32 PM
It would be interesting to discover if any local Democratic or Republican politicians are marching in the parade. They would certainly have a political purpose.
Posted by: Mark Hackler | November 13, 2007 3:42 PM
Why is it so difficult to see that what's being advocated for (and what Ed is up in arms about) is the willingness to support only some veterans (the ones who advocate troop withdrawal)? Are people truly willing to stand up and state that this veteran deserves honor while that one does not, simply because the experience of war soured one and not the other? How could that be anything other than political if the overall goal is to "honor all veterans"? Either one is a veteran or one is not, and we must honor all if we honor any...the rights and freedoms they fought to defend extend to all of us, equally, and it would be, to put it mildly, hypocritical of us to not reciprocate.
Posted by: PuckishOne | November 13, 2007 4:29 PM
I don't understand what you are saying Puck. Are those allowed to march coming from an organization called "Veterans for the Iraq War"? Are they carrying such a banner? I didn't read Ed's post as saying veterans from the anti-war group are not allowed to march at all. I presumed (perhaps wrongly) that they intended to identify themselves somehow during the march as being affiliated with their group. If so, please address my prior post.
Posted by: Lawdog | November 13, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted by: Taz | November 13, 2007 4:48 PM
Lawdog - You make a good point. Would this veterans' group be permitted to march if they marched "unidentified" and en masse with the rest of the veterans, I wonder? If that were the case I respectfully withdraw my arguments.
Also, I think I got a bit mentally sidetracked earlier - sorry. My main point is that no one should be allowed to limit the rights of veterans (or anyone else) to speak their minds regardless of "appropriateness" or venue. Was it "appropriate" or "polite" to allow neo-Nazis to march in Skokie? No, but it was their right under the First Amendment. Is Fred Phelps ever appropriate or polite? No, but he has the right to speak in this country. As soon as we start setting arbitrary limits on freedom of expression we set ourselves up for worse in the future. There are worse crimes than being impolite or causing offense, and for me that would include being unable to speak freely in my own country.
Posted by: PuckishOne | November 13, 2007 5:01 PM
I rarely disagree with Mr. Brayton, but this is one of those instances. Like Mike, I think one needs more information before concluding any wrong-doing on the part of the parade committee (not withstanding some ill-considered comments by Councilman Val Lerch, a member of the parade committee, which do suggest an equivalence of opposition to the war and lack of patriotism).
Eg, did the groups opposed plan to carry banners, signs, etc, indicating opposition to the Iraq war? Did any participants plan to carry such messages in support of the war? Were the individuals whose opposition groups were denied parade permits free to participate as members of other groups? Et al. A perfunctory google search revealed no additional information, so I have no insight into such details.
Given the despicable behavior of the administration vis-a-vis the issue of war support and patriotism, one can certainly infer support for the war from support of veterans, but that inference is simply a mistake. One (eg, me) can have hated the Vietnam war with a passion and ditto this one, but that has nothing to do with one's support of veterans per se. To me, the committee chairwoman's stated objective of separating those postures seems not only acceptable but admirable if achieved.
- Charles
Posted by: ctw | November 13, 2007 5:11 PM
Several people here mentioned that it could be appropriate to prevent political messages; some others mentioned that it is appropriate when both pro-war and anti-war messages are disallowed. However, note the statement attributed in the article to the member of Military Families Speak Out:
"Pat Alviso, a member of Military Families Speak Out, maintains that the group is not there to protest."
If this is true, then preventing them from the participation is in itself a political statement. Furthermore, names of two out of three anti-war organizations, "Veterans for Peace" and "Military Families Speak Out" are sufficiently non-specific that it is unreasonable to assume that simply a banner with organization's name would be a political statement. While the name "Iraq Veterans Against the War" expresses a political viewpoint, the name alone should not be enough for disqualification -- I am sure that names of some of the veteran organizations that were allowed to participate also express a political message.
So I agree with Ed on this.
Posted by: Yuri | November 13, 2007 9:50 PM
It appears the logical fallacy here is the assumption that an advocacy group never has any interest other than advocating its primary goal. I have taken part in dozens of events over the years where I was the "Democratic" representative in the affair. Despite that, I certainly did not represent the official party position, and in some cases I am completely opposed to the party majority. So, were my appearances "political" because I belong to the party? Or are they not political because I am purely acting at the level of discussing public policy?
It is entirely possible that this group merely wants to participate in the parade because they are veterans. I don't know what was said on the application to participate. Perhaps they stated their intention to make the event an opportunity to protest, perhaps not.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 13, 2007 10:21 PM