SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (17779)11/26/2003 3:04:57 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793611
 
Years of Rage
A portrait of Kathy Boudin, American terrorist.

BY DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Wednesday, November 26, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Return, now, to a time long before anyone heard of antiglobalists--a period when hot-eyed protesters went around smashing windows, setting bombs and fighting police, whom the revolutionaries invariably referred to as "pigs." It was in the '60s and '70s that the Weathermen and fellow travelers embarked on their effort to dismantle the government and the entire system, a mission they deemed central to the world revolution they aspired to lead--and one far more exciting than the dull activism of the anti-Vietnam War protests, on which they had cut their teeth.
They had, indeed, never lived so fully, nor felt so alive, as when they were planning bombings and similar actions, which they designated as "military," while moving from one safe house to another. And, as Susan Braudy makes clear in "Family Circle," her impressive, densely detailed history of one of the leading members of this revolutionary elite, life--even life on the run--could be quite empty without the regular infusions of press coverage and other publicity to which they had become accustomed.

Planting a mere occasional bomb, as her time on the run continued, could never equal the pleasure given by the activities Kathy Boudin had once relished. The Weathermen had, after all, once made news setting explosives in police stations, National Guard headquarters, an Army base and even the Pentagon. None of these actions, though, brought a greater sense of triumph than the one Kathy and her closest comrade-in-arms, Bernardine Dohrn, undertook when they set explosives in the first-floor ladies' room of the U.S. Capitol building in 1972--a crime, like the previous bombings, for which the group took full credit, in messages issued to the FBI and the press.
Getting the credit, indeed, was the whole point. But it was the Capitol bombing that heralded the beginning of a major problem--that problem being the FBI's new policy, which cannily avoided announcements crediting bombings and similar acts to the Weathermen. The agency let it be known, instead, that the explosions were the work of unidentified "crank groups." To be deprived, thus, of the headlines and publicity that were life and air to the Weathermen was a serious blow to their underground, a major cause of the aimlessness that would becloud Kathy Boudin's life in particular--a life, Ms. Braudy argues, in no small way driven by a wish to exceed her famous lawyer-father, whose case list of clients included accused spy Judith Coplon, Daniel Ellsberg, the Berrigan brothers and Dr. Spock.

Whatever the merits of that interpretation, there can be little doubt that Kathy Boudin had determined to make her mark as the most uncompromising of the Movement radicals--a role that brought her both notoriety and a certain reverence at Bryn Mawr, where, in an otherwise torpid political atmosphere, she harangued fellow students on the inequities of the system. Among those students was Diana Oughton, who would die in 1970 in the Greenwich Village townhouse that Kathy Boudin's crowd used as a bomb factory.

Their road had up to that point been less lethal, though hardly without adventure. In their determination to advance the revolution, Kathy and her crew devoted themselves to the Black Panthers, who were, it turned out, something less than grateful for their attentions. The Weathermen nonetheless proceeded with their plans for a huge 1969 rally, to be held in Chicago and dedicated to the Panthers--called "Days of Rage."

Many aspects of Ms. Braudy's chronicle will evoke the time and atmosphere but none, perhaps, more wonderfully than the preparations for this event, which Kathy Boudin and partners considered a crucial step toward the revolution. They had long schooled themselves in efforts to overthrow bourgeois convention. Diana Oughton, for one, showed her revolutionary ardor by killing and eating an alley cat, among other spiritual tests.

Ms. Oughton's career came to a halt a year later in the explosion that splattered a West 11th Street town house with body parts. The bomb under construction there also killed two other of Kathy's comrades, while she and another woman were able to make their way out. From there on in she would live underground. Her life on the run came to an end in 1981, when she agreed to take part in the holdup of a Brink's truck, during which crime the robbers executed the Brink's guard and two police officers.

Despite her devoted father's lawyerly efforts, and his (failed) attempts to get her husband and partner in crime to lie and testify to her innocence, she was sentenced to 20 years to life. Some weeks ago, thanks in part to recommendations from notables testifying to her good works, Kathy Boudin--who continued, amazingly enough, to maintain that she had known nothing about the violent crime in which she had taken part--was granted parole.
Ms. Braudy's history does not stint on the larger, family story central to it and the intense, warped, oddly loving family relationships. The circle consisted of Leonard Boudin, his hapless wife, Jean (a poet and enabler who put up with his lifetime of philandering with a host of young women, including his daughter's friends), and their son, Michael, an intellectual who made his own way early--an escapee from the family's political tradition--to become a conservative and distinguished jurist.

In this not always satisfactory history fat with sources about which one would like to know more, it is, nevertheless, hard to find a dull moment.

Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

opinionjournal.com



To: unclewest who wrote (17779)11/26/2003 3:08:44 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793611
 
Our Soldiers, Our Thanks
Here's to the men who risk their lives to keep us free.

BY KARL ZINSMEISTER
Mr. Zinsmeister, editor in chief of The American Enterprise, is author of "Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq," just published by Truman Talley.

With Thanksgiving here, and the first American troops to deploy for the Iraq War nearing their one-year anniversary overseas, it's a good time to remember some families in this country to whom the rest of us owe a great deal. Take the family of Sean Shields, a young American I encountered while embedded with the 82nd Airborne Division. Lt. Shields, currently stationed near Baghdad, is the third generation of his clan to serve in the U.S. Army airborne.
Sean's grandfather was one of the men who first created the stellar reputation of the 82nd Airborne--parachuting into the critical battles of Normandy and Nijmegen during World War II. Sean's father served in Gulf War I, eventually retiring as a colonel. Now Sean is an Army Ranger doing his share of the heavy lifting in Iraq. He has shaken off two roadside bombings of his Humvee within a month, and soldiers on without complaint. There are many such families in this country with a multigenerational tradition of military service.

There are also many families who seem oblivious to this tradition. In his recent book, "Keeping Faith," Frank Schaefer describes how, after he'd sent other children to New York University and Georgetown, his affluent Boston neighbors expressed disappointment at his son's decision to become a Marine. "He's so bright and talented and could do anything!" blurted one man. "What a waste!" A similar view is betrayed by New York Times reporter Chris Hedges when he describes today's soldiers as "poor kids from Mississippi or Alabama or Texas who could not get a decent job or health insurance and joined the Army because it was all we offered them."

Are such impressions accurate? From my experiences observing American soldiers--most recently as an embedded reporter in Iraq--my answer is an emphatic "no." A much wider range of talented people serve in our military than many realize. There are suburbanites, hillbillies, kids from concrete canyons and farm boys in our fighting forces. I met graduates of tony schools like Wesleyan and Cornell in Iraq, not only in the officer corps, but in the ranks. I met disciplined immigrants from Colombia, Russia, Panama and other places. Our battlefield computers, helicopters and radars are kept humming by flocks of mechanical whizzes and high-tech aces.

I know of a man who was most of the way through a Ph.D. at Fordham University when, looking for a more active and patriotic career, he decided he'd like to start jumping out of airplanes with the 82nd Airborne. He came in not as an officer but as a private. Four years later, he is a highly competent sergeant. I learned about the son of an engineer and a nursing supervisor who had glided through his school's gifted-student program before landing a job as an open-heart-surgery technician. Then the Sept. 11 attacks convinced him that his country needed him for more important work. He is now a medic in the 82nd Airborne, hoping for an eventual career as an Army doctor.
A few years ago, I interviewed Gen. John Abizaid, now America's top military officer in the Middle East. He had entered West Point in 1969, and noted that at that time the academy had to accept every minimally qualified applicant just to fill his class. Today, entry into our military academies is prized as much as admission to an Ivy League school. That's a clear indicator of how support for the military has rebounded in this country since our Vietnam-era lows--and it hints at the quality of the individuals who flow into our armed forces at all levels.

Our soldiers aren't all saints and scholars, but the base of our military pyramid is full of impressive individuals. There are also many unusually talented men and women at the middle and top of the command structure. The commanders of our troops in Iraq today are instructive examples. Brig. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who leads the First Armored Division in Baghdad, has earned, in addition to his military achievements, three separate master's degrees. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, whose leadership of the 101st Airborne has temporarily made him the prince of northern Iraq, is well equipped for that task thanks to, among other credentials, a Ph.D. in international relations from Princeton (which he earned two years faster than most doctoral candidates). The commander of our third full division in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno of the Fourth Infantry Division, has a master's in nuclear engineering.

Independent thinking by line soldiers is not only tolerated in our armed forces, it is required by the new freelancing style of warfare. Outsiders who envision our fighting forces as authoritarian institutions would be surprised to observe the meritocratic nature of our military in action. Obstacles are generally surmounted after open, democratic-style contention among competing views. I witnessed many spirited debates--among officers in the command tents as well as between privates and sergeants--over the best ways to achieve important objectives. The general modus operandi is competition: "May the smartest idea, and biggest bicep, win."

America's soldiers have the skills to fly missiles into designated windows and squeeze off one-mile sniper shots. They have the openness and democratic habits to serve as good representatives of our liberal society. And they are also admirable on a third front: for their moral idealism.

Hollywood war stories like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Black Hawk Down" promulgate the notion that contemporary soldiers fight not for cause and country but simply for the survival of themselves and their buddies. But most American soldiers are quite conscious of the titanic clash of moral universes that lies behind today's U.S. venture into the Middle East. They are not only aware of the historical importance of this fight, but proud of their role in it, and broadly motivated by high principles extending far beyond self preservation.
Gregory Kolodciejczky was a New York City fireman. When the Twin Towers went down, 14 men from his stationhouse were killed, and he decided to help make sure the events of that day would never be replayed in his country. At age 32 he chucked everything and started a new career as a paratrooper. He believes that by fighting in Iraq he is honoring the memory of his dead friends, and helping protect Americans from future acts of terror. I know numerous soldiers who put aside well-paying jobs, family life, graduate school and comfortable careers after concluding, in the wake of Sept. 11, that their country needed their military service.

Families of some of the soldiers I've reported on have shared their letters home with me, and many of these reflect the rectitude of those men and women. Lt. John Gibson of the 82nd's 325th Regiment wrote his parents on his birthday this summer that "we are homesick and want to see our families and loved ones, but not at the expense of an incomplete mission. I know that a completely free and democratic Iraq may not be in place by the time that I leave, but it will be significantly under way before I am redeployed. I see things here, on a daily basis, that hurt the human heart. I see poverty, crime, terrorism, murder, and stupidity. However, I see hope in the eyes of many Iraqis, hope for a chance to govern themselves. I think they are on the cusp of a new adventure, a chance for an entire country to start over again."

Pvt. Melville Johnson of the 82nd Airborne reflected on his time in combat this way: "I feel Iraq has real potential for the future--with the help of the U.S. military, humanitarian agencies, and the installation of a just, fair, and compassionate government. I feel tremendously for the American families that lost a loved one. I also feel for the families of the enemy. At night, before I rest, I think of the enemy we killed. I remember the way their bodies lay in unnatural states, positions God never intended them to take. I hope these images will soon fade. But would I willingly, happily, and completely fight this war again? Yes, I would do it all over again with just as much, or more, determination."

The patriot Thomas Paine once said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, so that my children may have peace." This is a creed many soldiers adhere to quite literally. To a man, the deployed GIs I know tell me they don't want any waffling or hesitation about finishing the job in Iraq. They say it is much less important that the Iraqi war be over soon than that it be successful, and they know that will take time.

Amid the sour soap opera of Jessica Lynch, Americans should remember that there are many U.S. soldiers who displayed real self-sacrificial heroism in the Iraq War. Just among the 82nd Airborne there are men like Medic Alan Babin, who left a covered position and exposed himself on the battlefield to come to the aid of another soldier. He was shot in the abdomen and is now fighting his way back from the loss of numerous organs, several full-body arrests and 20 operations.
When you talk to our wounded soldiers they say, astonishingly, that they don't regret the fight. Almost universally, they say they are anxious to return to their units as soon as possible. Most American warriors subscribe to the words of John Stuart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

It's easy for critics on both the left and right to convince themselves that the U.S. is a decadent society, that our young people have gone soft, that we will never have another generation like the men who climbed the cliffs at Normandy. That judgment, I'm here to report, is utterly wrong. We've got soldiers in uniform today whom Americans can trust with any responsibility, any difficulty, any mortal challenge.

At the end of this strenuous year, we give thanks for them.

opinionjournal.com



To: unclewest who wrote (17779)11/26/2003 6:37:59 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793611
 
Unclewest, there is a distinction between someone as a person and that same person as a politician. What I said is that Bush as a person is nice. But then when he embarks into the political arena, he associates himself with those who propose things similar to what Hitler and Thrid Reich did, which is walk into countries contrary to prevailing world sentiments.

We have you counting countries that Hitler invaded and claiming that it is not that bad considering the numbers. Surely you can do a better analysis than that!