You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Fifth Column
Councilman refuses Pledge as protest to U.S. involvement in Iraq
2007-01-23
PHOENIX -- A Mesa City Council member refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance before a meeting to protest American involvement in what he calls an Iraqi civil war. "If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe, you don't belong in politics," Tom Rawles said.

Rawles told Mayor Keno Hawker of his intention before Monday's meeting but surprised the other five council members with an announcement during a study session before the meeting. "Although I love my country and respect our flag, this is my way of protesting America's continuing involvement in the civil war in Iraq," Rawles said in a written statement hours before the meeting.

Rawles said he has been thinking about making such a protest for about five months.
Prob'ly consulted with Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink.
He said he favored the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, predicated on President Bush's assertion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the United States. "I didn't have a problem with going into war," Rawles said, "(but) that's not what we're doing now. Now we're into nation-building and acting as a policeman in a bloody civil war. That's the part that bothers me."

Rawles said he will refrain from saying the Pledge until U.S. troops are called home or he's no longer in public office.
This jackass is out of office now but he and his idiot constituents apparently don't realize it yet. An affirmation of loyalty, usually an oath, is a common-law requirement for holding public office. Citizens may not be required to give loyalty oaths, but it is mandatory for public officials. This dates back more than a thousand years and is supported by precedent and various constitutional requirements from the beginning of United States history. Publicly repudiating that affirmation, as in declaring a refusal to pledge allegiance, is an instant disqualification. He has effectively resigned from office.
Posted by:Atomic Conspiracy

#15  http://www.cityofmesa.org/citymgt/mayorcc/Rawles.asp Includes email address. { ;^)
Posted by: Parabellum   2007-01-23 17:31  

#14  Rawles is a longtime gadfly who's popular with libertarians. He has a blog at one of the Arizona Repugnant subsidiary-paper sites. I won't honor it by providing a link, but any search engine will find it.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-01-23 17:07  

#13  Verlain, STFU would ya? It herts wen eye lern.

On a serious note, I'm a little skeptical of your claim. I find it hard to believe that logic can be spoken to college students.

Whenever I try to talk to a college student I get, "Bush lied! 600,000 died!" Has anyone else noticed that the 600,000 number makes liberals brains go into a smoking panic mode and suspends their ability to function mentally? I suggest we break out the siege engines and send them to every campus in America. And every news outlet. And Noam Chomskys house. And Congress. And the U.N. And.... How many siege engines do we have? We might need to have Chrysler help out another war effort.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-01-23 14:06  

#12  I live in the metro Phoenix area and this guys is a moron. He was a county commissioner until they gave him a tar and feather bath. How these morons keep coming out of the wood work is beyond me. I hope they recall his rear end and toss him out.
Posted by: Omomble Glinetch4682   2007-01-23 13:05  

#11  If Mr. Rawles would consider what the impact of our pulling out and allowing the various Iraqi and infiltrator factions to battle it out, would have on our international reputation, I'm sure he would at least pledge allegiance to our flag.
After all, we are not there to rape and pillage. We are not there to install a puppet dictator. We are not there to assume control of their lives, but to help them assume such control. To do so requires the presence of some muscle, and the application of law and order over time.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-01-23 12:50  

#10  Uh . . . Glenmore buddy . . . isn't it "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"?
Posted by: Tibor   2007-01-23 12:50  

#9  I never much cared for the idea of pledging allegience to a FLAG either. Getting killed over a piece of cloth doesn't make a lot of sense. But the COUNTRY (for which it stands), that is worth pledging allegience to, and worth it even if one disagreed with involvement in Iraq.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-01-23 12:43  

#8  (will this guy ever shut up??)

I hope not.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-01-23 12:38  

#7  Didn't see a party affiliation in the story. Let me try to guess...

Mr. Rawles sounds like and old line conservative Republican.
"I didn't have a problem with going into war," Rawles said, "(but) that's not what we're doing now. Now we're into nation-building and acting as a policeman in a bloody civil war. That's the part that bothers me."
Posted by: ed   2007-01-23 12:14  

#6  WTF is it with people and "civil wars"? There's nothing inherently better or worse, easier or more difficult, about civil wars vs. international wars (or the many variants involving various degrees of both). The only question is what is our interest, and how is it served in a particular situation (that interest may be defined to include some compelling humanitarian issue).

If our interests are best served by a long, difficult, bloody engagement in a civil war, or in an intergalactic war, or even in a pie fight between orcs and pink fluffy bunnies - then we're in. If our interests are not best served that way - we're out (or never in to begin with, or in only via proxies and $$$$, or whatever).

Back a few months when NBC or some media nitwits solemnly pronounced Iraq a civil war, I spoke to a college class and explored their understanding of a civil war and why such a consideration mattered - or didn't - in the case of Iraq. As I suspected, there was a very strong and utterly illiterate presumption that a civil war was something we couldn't/shouldn't get involved in. I was somewhat heartened by the fact that, when walked through the logic of the general question and then the facts of Iraq in particular, most of them had a very different take.

Iraq post-invasion has had strong elements of a civil war since the get-go. This mattered not because of semantics or abstract taffy-yanking over civil vs. other sorts of wars, but because MNF-I and DOD/WH/State seemed not to realize that an incredibly barbaric, relentless terrorism war by Sunni against Shi'a would have consequences if not dealt with (umm, focusing on making Sunnis love us and entangling them in a democratic political process, both worthy goals that would take about 27 years to bear fruit, were not the obvious call, explaining the despair many of us felt going back over a year).

As always, it's a judgment call about whether, and how, we should be involved in a conflict, whether it be pure civil war, pure inter-state conflict, or the more common mix somewhere along the spectrum in between. People ought to toss out their lazy and illiterate analytical crutches and deal with specific situations seriously.

OK, class dismissed ..... (will this guy ever shut up??)

Posted by: Verlaine   2007-01-23 12:09  

#5  This is the kind of crap that just pisses me off about not having a agreesive leadership. These as*hats get away with outright Seditionist-Treasonist acts yet "don't question thier patriotism" somehow shields them for being called out as what they are. Democracy means we debate, we disagree, we vote, BUT being a NATION means once the decision is made even if we disagree we are all obligated to work towards makeing it succeed for the NATION's sake. Hence many but one.
Posted by: C-Low   2007-01-23 11:50  

#4  "this is my way of protesting America's continuing involvement in the civil war in Iraq,"

Can't wait to see his reaction to the one about to happen here.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2007-01-23 11:20  

#3  If he wants to do something useful, he ought to organize a campaign there to defeat McCain.
Posted by: SpecOp35   2007-01-23 10:36  

#2  "If you're not willing to stand up for what you believe, you don't belong in politics," Tom Rawles said.

...and if you don't know how to grandstand, you don't belong in politics either.
Didn't see a party affiliation in the story. Let me try to guess...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-01-23 10:27  

#1  Jeeze I didn't know that this country had so many diplomatic and military experts. Why doesn't Mr Rawles and the rest of his ilk lend their experise to the State department or U.S. Military? Gosh wouldn't we all feel safe if more people like him were in power?
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-01-23 10:19  

00:00