Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

What Integrity Looks Like

By Dante Zappala, AlterNet. Posted July 15, 2005.


While most of our elected officials sit on their hands, one of the few politicians doing right by our soldiers is a conservative Christian Republican congressman.
Advertisement

Until recently, I've been completely unimpressed with Washington antics. Politicians get paid a lot of money to do their jobs. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Watching them blatantly abdicate their responsibility in the run-up to the Iraq war was almost as difficult as watching most of America let them get away with it.

Worse, however, has been watching these elected officials sit on their hands as Americans die every day in the desert amid the stateside failure of policy and leadership.

I had all but given up. Then I met Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina. While generally conservative, he's got a solid track record of recklessly leading with his heart and voting his conscience.

I first heard of him prior to the invasion of Iraq. Like many others on Capitol Hill, the White House sold him on the idea that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States and that there were links between Iraq and 9/11. Angry that our allies saw such overwhelming evidence in a different light, Walter Jones insisted that french fries be renamed "freedom fries" in House office building cafeterias.

Since the invasion, Jones has distinguished himself by actually paying attention to facts as the Bush administration's arguments started to show cracks. He began to see in Iraq what he saw Vietnam: a war justified by false pretenses and empty ideology that had the real consequence of needlessly killing American soldiers. Jones started sending personal letters with handwritten words of condolences to the families of every soldier killed in Iraq. The hallways outside of his Capitol Hill office are lined with the faces of the fallen.

My family recently went to Washington to thank Walter Jones for his efforts. One of those pictures in his hallway is of my brother, Sgt. Sherwood Baker. One of those letters he sent is on my living room table.

Sherwood was killed in Baghdad last year. His death has kept my faith at the fore. That faith is challenged, quite honestly, when I hear the warmakers extolling their belief in Christ as their savior as they drop cluster bombs and commit other people's children to the hell of war.

Walter Jones could easily be considered one of "them" -- a Christian conservative. I sat next to him in his office and quickly relearned how wrong it is to label a person. As a Christian myself, I understood immediately that his personal belief in Christ has been the basis of his actions. The most obvious aspect of our meeting was the authenticity of his humility.

He began by speaking specifically to my mother and the mothers of two other fallen soldiers who were with us.

Tears have been easy for me to come by over the last 14 months since Sherwood died. The catalyst could be the unabated laughter of my nephew or the national anthem; anything, really, that brings Sherwood to mind.

When Walter Jones said this simple sentence, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for this war," I found myself unable to hold them back.

I waded through the election rhetoric last year waiting to hear those courageous words. My brother was on the security detail of the Iraq Survey Group. He died looking for those non-existent weapons of mass destruction that President Bush used as a rationale for this disastrous war.

Walter Jones is now introducing legislation that seeks a timetable for exiting Iraq.

The leadership that advocated for the Iraq war has displayed a deplorable contempt for reality. Our troops suffer injury and death every day. The Bush administration, meanwhile, finds it best to nurse its own bruised egos, to spin history and the truth on their heads just to make themselves look good.

Walter Jones, on the other hand, has done what Jesus would ask. Those principles have led him through a maze of unchecked passion and righteousness. And now, he finds himself in catharsis, staring at revelation. Some call this the path. The next step on that path is to try to right the wrong.

As a conservative Republican congressman who has changed his mind about the war, he's in a position to do it. This country needs a restoration of integrity and competence in our government. Walter Jones stands as a beacon of hope that we are pointed in the right direction.

This piece originally appeared in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Digg!

Dante Zappala is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focusand a member of Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
wot about alternet's integrity
Posted by: sarah on Jul 15, 2005 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an interesting topic, considering the shock i reieved when i logged on to Alternet yesterday. "Integrity." Before i launch my righteous anger, let me introduce myself first: My name is Sarah M. Daugherty. I worked myself through college and earned a terminal degree, an MFA in writing. I am a Phi Kapp Phi honors society member, a college instuctor, and a published poet. I am a very indedenpend thinker and mostly, a law abiding citizen, but liberal and giving in my political and social views. I also like to write and interact with others in writing. I find it stimulating, but i know the difference between my thoughts and ideas and those of others.

I am disappointed with alternet. I had preferred this news sites format because it provides a venue for discussion. So i write here. I also had respected Alternet's practice of compiling the reader's written opinions and posting them, with due credit : THE READERS WRITE. I write. Yesterday, i read a blog by TAI MOSES on the subject the Supreme Court appointment. I was startled by the similarity in content to a series of "comments" that i had posted when Sandra Day Oconner first stepped down. Here are exceprts of my posts, still archived on alternet: "do you think the job of US Supreme Court justice offers medical and dental? If so, i'm gonna start lobbying for the job. I'm into any job that has no end date... "for life" has a nice ring to it. hmm....the baggy shapeless court robes may cause me some issues."
and "if they're looking for a replacement for susan day o'conner, i'm the right grrl for the job. Whoops! that's sandra day o'conner... and she's the first woman to have ever served on the US Supreme Court. Quite a role model. "

the Tai Moses blog mirrored myis "reader commentary," vulunteering for the nomination as well, stating: "why not me?" and even discussing "robe fittings."
I am disgusted. If this writer can not generate her own content nor express herself in her own voice, i think she is lacking in intergrity if she culls ideas from the posters on this website. Period. Now i don't feel so free in what i write here. Now i wonder if others have experienced this "intellectual property theft," after posting on this site, and simply logged off for good as i was tempted to do. it's not a small thing. it's insulting.--and showing a complete lack of integrity, at least on the part of Tai Moses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sorry about the typos. Posted by: sarah
» RE: sorry about the typos. Posted by: h2oaso
» of course you say that. Posted by: sarah
» etc. Posted by: sarah
» RE: wot about alternet's integrity Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant
» sarah Posted by: damn
» RE: wot about alternet's integrity Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant
» wha't next, banishment? Posted by: sarah
» elitism for all Posted by: mihan
» check yer dictionary Posted by: damn
locations of writings in question
Posted by: sarah on Jul 15, 2005 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for your own assesssments, here is access to the writings in question:

The professional blog by the editor of Alternet, Tai moses:
on the alternet.org site, click on "bloggers" scroll down to "Tai Moses." The blog is "Defending a Culture of Punctuation," by Tai Moses posted on July 13, 2005 4:35.

It's a little tougher to find the reader commentary i wrote:

Go to "archive," enter "july" in the search by month slot, scroll down. The article where i posted my comment is entitled: "After O'Conner" by John Nichols for The Nation, posted on Alternet.org on July 1, 2005."

click on the title, scroll down. My commentaries are posted under the name "sarah." The first comment, with specific written prespective and ideas mirrored by Ms. Moses in her july 15 blog, is entitled: "CRANKY BAD MOOD." there are a number of other "reply" comments to other posts i made using the name "sarah."

i just think it's crappy and disrespectful for the reader's comments to be used as fodder for perspective, imagery, and content for the writings of paid staff. (esp. since the readers are invited to post unique perspectives by alternet.org) Where's the "integrity?" I've got some in my pocket, but it's mine, mine,mine, all mine.

AND OH: "fkui**#$7ipauggJG9pq!" and this too: "%*#^!&*#"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iminent withdrawal, what's next?
Posted by: wjason on Jul 15, 2005 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How interesting! It seems like many conservatives are really starting to realize the faults of the war. Check this out, even Pat Buchanan wants the troops out:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45259

The growing conservative move to withdraw combined with more indicting info about the war--i.e. Downing Street Memo, Karl Rove, the lawsuit against the gov't by William Rodriguez about 9/11)--could put enough pressure on on Bush and co. to exit.

Any flaws to that prediction?

If we do withdraw, what does that mean for the future of US foreign policy?

Thoughts?

Full disclosure: My comments were influenced by emails from friends, other stuff I read, and probably subliminal advertising messages...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It ain't gonna happen Posted by: Sojourner
Please ignore the post w/ "wot" in title
Posted by: road2paradise on Jul 15, 2005 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is completely disrespectful of the article above. It is a pretentious diatribe between snobs who ignore the power of some painful words from people who really know pain: the families of those who have died "for our freedom."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

integrity is non-partisan
Posted by: Catherine a on Jul 15, 2005 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zappala's article is refreshing in pointing out that integrity is not the province of any one particular party, but rather a path which can by chosen by any individual of any party.

There can still be differences of opinion as to policy, but integrity, honesty and willingness to keep an open mind and to change one's mind when appropriate are desperately needed, regardless of party affiliation.

In these times of hackable voting machines (including the optical scanners used in Democratic precincts) and corporate-funded election campaigns that wastefully use precious resources, there is perhaps no party which has a right to claim the moral high ground. The language of integrity always deserves to be heard.

Thanks to Zappala for this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Definition of integrity?
Posted by: hbwell on Jul 15, 2005 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My definition of integrity is the ability to tell the truth knowing there's an incentive in telling a lie. Walter Jones is an American Hero in my mind for turning a complete 180 and opting for truth, instead of being a vessel for lies.

If only all of us could have the courage to confront our close peers(social group), to go against the party line and stand for something we know, in our hearts, is right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it really integrity?
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 17, 2005 5:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Walter Jones said this simple sentence, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for this war,"

So, Mr Jones did not do his homework. Seems more like incomptence than integrity. If he had any real integrity he might have seen this all as folly. As many say, "hindsight is 20/20."

I can not think much of him for his stupid emotional actions concerning "freedom" fries. Has he apologized for berating the French because their opinion differed from americas? Does he still have a bad opinion of the French because they didn't support a war of imperialism?
It's rings shallow in my heart.

Would he have regrets if everything had gone smoothly and we built bases unopposed and sold Iraq to multinational corporations?

As for sarah, give em hell and I've got a robe you can wear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oops
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jul 17, 2005 5:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stole Iraq and gave it to multinationals not sold it.

and I meant incompetence not incomptence.

My apologies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What of the faceless?
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 18, 2005 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Each time I hear reference to the cost of the war in Iraq: in American soldier's lives lost, the devastation to their families, the purposelessness of their sacrifices, I get a stabbing pain in my gut.

Understandable people would say. It happens to all of us, no one wants our soldiers dying.

But is is not that simple. The stabbing pain is for all the nameless, faceless, numberless innocent Iraqi civilians who have died, been injured and maimed and their lives completely destroyed in an equally senseless tragedy. And it is even worse, because this carnage has been done IN OUR NAMES. We are the only people in the world who bear direct responsibility for the actions and decisions of our leaders. What they do they do by, for and with power vested by us.

In my mind, that makes each of us, no matter who we voted for, culpable. And I can believe terrorists understand this and when we think they are blowing up INNOCENT civilians in London, Spain, or anywhere else, they don't see these civilians as innocent because these "innocents" voted in the people who are waging this war or support the war.

Whatever atrocities Saddam Hussien may or may not have committed against his or any other people, he did it for himself, with the absolute culpability of an absolute despot. He did not do it in the name of and by the willful power of the Iraqi people. Yet, they are the ones paying for his actions. In
limbs severed, bodies crippled, lives lost and their country ruined.

Where are the personal letters to the Iraqi mothers and fatrhers? Where are the walls of pictures and list of names of those innocent, peaceful Iraqis whose only crime was to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Where is the official body count of what OUR leaders have done, in our names. Where are the protests in the streets demanding that peace be done, ON OUR NAMES!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some one who understands the word of Jesus
Posted by: murph on Jul 20, 2005 1:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This message obviously came from the heart. I would like to say first, "I am sorry for your loss". Secondly, I apologize for the insensitive tone of some of my fellow commentors here. If what you say is true (and I'm sure it is), we on the left should be happy that a conservative republican is willing to publically disagree with the President and the majority of the Senate. Come on people, show some compassion. This is one of the few Christians who understands the message as Jesus meant it. Before you jump on me, I am not a Christian. I am not a Republican. I am not a conservative. I do however, understand that being open minded is imperative, and once in awhile there is common ground we can share. If the goal is to extract our military from a wrongful war in Iraq, we need to build support from where ever it comes. Personaly, as much as I belive any war is wrong, I honor those who give their lives as members of our military. I think Jesus would agree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The war in Iraq is just and fair
Posted by: sensitiveguy on Jul 20, 2005 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that freedom has a price. War is hell its true, but if you dont believe in standing up to bigots with bombs who target civilians and bomd trade towers rather than military targerts, then what does it take to get you to go to war? Only a pacifist fool believes that helplessness is a virtue. A pacifist will only have his freedom if better men and women than he are there to preserve it for him. This war is absolutely just. WE WERE ATTACKED. I will not forget 9-11 or undermine an effort by our heroic military to fight for our freedom against the terrorist. I will not call them (insurgents ) like communist news network. I call them what they are. Are your pacifist viewpoints partisan garbage? Is it the fact that its a republican president that bothers you? Or are you really pacifist? Either stand to take is ridiculous and foolish. Now if you want to argue attacking Iraq from a tactical viewpoint then that is a legitamate debate. So Pacifist and partisan libs, dont be so quick to discount the blood of heroic people who have died to preserve your freedoms. They are heroes whether there conservative or liberal. And if you want to talk an end to the war I think we should end the war on poverty . Now there is a ridiculous quagmire for you. Good day to you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WhatNow - you are spot on. We all knew so why didn't this guy?
Posted by: MCollins on Aug 11, 2005 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding your comment:

"When Walter Jones said this simple sentence, "If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted for this war,"

So, Mr Jones did not do his homework. Seems more like incomptence than integrity. If he had any real integrity he might have seen this all as folly. As many say, "hindsight is 20/20."

I can not think much of him for his stupid emotional actions concerning "freedom" fries. Has he apologized for berating the French because their opinion differed from americas? Does he still have a bad opinion of the French because they didn't support a war of imperialism?
It's rings shallow in my heart.

Would he have regrets if everything had gone smoothly and we built bases unopposed and sold Iraq to multinational corporations?"


I was about to make a similar comment and then I read yours. I couldn't put it better myself.

It is all well and good to see a Christian Conservative come to his senses - but over 2 years later? Why did he fall for the lies of the Bush/Blair govts when millions of us around the world sure as heck didn't?

If he had done his homework, as you have said, he would have heard Scott Ritter trying to tell the world that Iraq had destroyed their weapons by the late 90s. He would have heard Colin Powell ONE YEAR BEFORE the invasion telling a committee that Iraq was no threat. He would have heard the Pope, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, Hans Blix and millions upon millions of people who took to the streets from every corner of the globe saying NO - WE DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR LIES.

It does indeed ring pretty hollow, to me too. If normal, everyday people know enough to see that what they are being told just does not ring true then a politician sure as heck should do his research before committing to the destruction of an entire country and the violent deaths of hundreds upon thousands of its people.

I don't know whether this man really is showing 'integrity' or merely jumping ship to save his own skin over the disaster that is the illegal, unjust, immoral and corrupt invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]