IVAW explains why they are all Carl Webb now

One of our resident IVAW refugees had an email exchange the other day with Geoff “Stolen Valor” Millard, Adrianne Kinne and TJ Buonomo in regards to the vote on the resolution to punish members who advocated violence against our deployed troops which I mentioned the other day.

From Millard;

The reason why this did not pass is because members disagreed on wording not the meaning or intent behind it. Therefore the Board will be drafting a different more inclusive policy that will be adopted by the Board and then voted on by the full membership at the next opportunity.

Ah, the law school grads of the IVAW membership were upset at the wording. What wording? Buonomo explains;

I voted against the resolution because the language has the effect of restricting free speech and asserts an explicit and unqualified moral judgement on the use of violence and sabotage, which I considered to be inappropriate.

Buonomo isn’t explicit about what wording he’s talking about, but I don’t see anything that would restrict free speech, as the Supreme Court defines free speech. Buonomo must be one of those super-legal eagles. Or maybe not. He continues;

First, my understanding is that part of the motivation for this resolution was provoked by Carl Webb’s vocal sympathy toward the use of violence by the occupied in opposition to their foreign occupiers. While he may have voiced this viewpoint in an unnecessarily inflammatory manner, I do not view it as controversial. In fact on numerous occasions I have heard and read military members and veterans- including non-IVAW members -say that were they in the same position they would likely do the same thing.

This is hardly a radical viewpoint.

In other words, Buonomo is defending his vote against the resolution by claiming that he has heard other members of the military say they’d resist an enemy who attacked the US. He makes some lame comment about how he’d willingly fight the Chinese if they invaded – I chuckle. Buonomo would be welcoming them on the drop zones with flowers and wine.

It’s important to understand that IVAW continues to call the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “occupations” – that’s how they defend their votes against the resolution. As long as they can ignore that we fight the enemies of Afghans and Iraqis for their own benefit, they can advocate for sabotage against our troops.

Buonomo continues;

It is painful for me to read about our troops getting killed and maimed but this does not negate the fact that the U.S. military is a foreign occupier, that in the case of Iraq it had no real justification to be there in the first place, and that the political leadership under the Bush administration betrayed the trust of the Iraqi people at our troops’ expense.

So let Carl Webb advocate for their deaths. That’s how painful it is for him. Buonomo, being a blowhard, waxes endlessly about how brave he was for bailing out on the American people with his free Air Force Academy education.

Adrianne Kinne chimes in with her history lesson;

I don’t know about what Carl said exactly… but you do realize that in the history of GI resistance… soldiers sabotaged THEIR OWN equipment!!! They threw wrenches in engines to stop them from working and anything they could do to break transportation equipment to stop themselves from shipping and arms from shipping. Please do a little research about the history of the GI resistance movement…

Yes, that makes sense – the troops deployed in combat would sabotage their own equipment. Especially since they’d be the ones that either depended on it to save their lives or had to repair it.

The consensus seems to be that the best thing IVAW can do for the troops is to end the war, and that sabotage speeds them to that end. To quote Buonomo;

As for helping veterans, in my opinion the best thing we can possibly do is to help bring an end to these occupations so that they don’t have to go on three or more deployments and suffer from PTSD, TBI, etc. I’d say our approach is reventative, though certainly not as effective as we’d like. That distinguishes us from most other veterans organizations

Yes, it certainly does, TJ. I have a text file of the entire exchange that I’ll gladly share with anyone who asks by email. Buonomo is a real blow hard and I just don’t want to waste the bandwidth on him, but his yammering is certainly instructive. I’ve cut the text of the responses of our refugee out, so all you get is pure loon.

Their defense of Carl Webb’s unrestricted free speech makes them all Carl Webb, now. There’s nothing in the resolution that restricted constructive discussion. Buonomo and the 40 others who voted against the resolution can gaze at their navels and pat themselves on their backs, but at the end of the day, they are complicit in Carl Webb’s treasonous preachings.

How soon do you think they’ll have another resolution ready to put to a vote? I suspect they’re just biding their time hoping everyone forgets about it. Not if I can help it.

And if IVAW has 1700 members, why are there just 70 people voting on these things?

Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Phony soldiers