I FINALLY LOSE IT WITH A RIGHT-WING FRIEND

Let me start by saying that I come from a family well-stocked with conservative and moderate Republicans; I'm married to a moderate Republican; and I live in an area that I like to affectionately call the "buckle of the Bush Bible Belt."

We live, in fact, only a hundred miles or so from where George W. Bush likes to claim he grew up--although in more than half a lifetime of living in west Texas, I have never yet met another soul who attended Andover prep school.

But I digress.

For years I've liked to say that I was the only pro-choice feminist for a hundred miles, but I sometimes suspect I might have to travel even further to track one down. Once, in 2004, I drove the hundred miles in another direction to drop in at the Lubbock, Texas Democratic Party headquarters to offer my services as a writer to help with the upcoming campaign. I drove up and down the city streets for hours and could never find it. I learned later that the office was located within another office, and didn't even have so much as a cardboard sign or a bumper sticker stuck in a window to identify it as such.

I hope Howard Dean can change all that by reaching into all the states, but again I digress.

The point is that I am accustomed to biting my tongue for the sake of peace. I can't count the number of dinner parties and other social gatherings where I have sat mute--especially during the nineties--listening to blistering Clinton-hating rhetoric from people who assumed that just because I was present, it meant I agreed. Most of the time I chose not to speak up because it was not the time and place to get into a political rounder, but if I was asked directly, I would answer honestly. (And then deal with the fall-out as I watched people's faces change from friendliness to out and out horror that anybody, anywhere, could possibly feel the way I did.)

But I found such social engagements to be so exhausting that, a few years ago, I withdrew into virtual social isolation, becoming a self-imposed hermit, living in my rural home and communicating with the outside world, for the most part, via the Internet and by phone calls. A writer by trade, anyway, I'm used to solitude and working from a home office.

I just got tired of being the only progressive voice in the room, you know? And I got tired of being mocked for beliefs that I hold dear, and tired of having to explain them to people.

I just got tired, period. And lonesome.

The point is that through the years, I have grown accustomed to being surrounded by people who disagree with me by varying degrees. I've been honest with my family and friends about my beliefs, but I have not been in-your-face or obnoxious with them in any way. I understand, very well, why they feel the way they do, and I completely and utterly respect their beliefs and opinions.

I love my family, dearly. And I love my conservative friends, and I would never, ever do anything to deliberately disrespect them or provoke them or otherwise strain our relationship over something as shallow as politics.

I do wish, sometimes, that they felt the same way in return.

When this war first started, for instance, my e-mail box would be bombarded with forward after forward after forwarded e-mails full of a sort of righteous superiority on the question of Iraq, and equally full of vitriol toward anyone who dared question this president's policies on the war.

Most of the time I did not respond, and when I did, I kept the tone civil, but eventually, I learned to just delete stuff that I knew was going to upset me.

But as the war dragged on…and on…and my son and other family members deployed and deployed again…a change began to occur. As events on the ground bore out--again and again--what I had been predicting all along, and as they grew increasingly frustrated with the horrendous mistakes made by the people they had entrusted to run our government, they started paying a little more attention to me when I commented about the war--especially when our own warriors began to return from Iraq voicing the same frustrations.

Even so, with some of my conservative friends, we have a "deal," that we just don't forward stuff to each other that we KNOW is inflammatory. I don't send them hate-Bush stuff and they don't send me quotes from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, and we get along great.

My friend Robby--whom I've written about before--has been a true class act in this respect. Lord knows we've had some heated discussions, but always with respect and love. Recently, when Molly Ivins died, it was Robby, bless his dear heart, who called to tell me how sorry he was, that he knew I'd miss her. And to prove what a gentleman he truly is, he even told funny stories about times she'd made fun of the NRA.

That touched my heart more than he will ever know, God bless him.

But recently, I received a forward from another friend who is so conservative he makes Robby look like a liberal, and that e-mail hit, I guess you'd say, my tipping point.

I simply could not remain silent.

It didn't look like a forward, and said simply, "From a Vet" in the subject area--my friend is a vet--so of course, I opened it. It was a forward that had, supposedly, been written by a Naval vet of WWII, in which he described having been on ships that had been destroyed by the Japanese, and so on, and then went on to say that, through it all, there was one voice that never wavered:

TOKYO ROSE.

The e-mail went on to spell out the kinds of things Tokyo Rose would say.

They were numbered:
1. Put down the president.
2. Find fault with the war strategies and claim they won't work.
3. Urge Americans to bring home the troops.

Then, the e-mail, not content with having made its point thus far, went on to add a list of names: Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo John, Tokyo Nancy…

It was at this point that I hit the "delete" button.

And that's when I lost it. I felt my cheeks go hot and my whole body tingled. My friend, I thought, had gone too far this time. Although he hadn't said it, the implications in the e-mail were clear to me, since he knows that I speak out against the Iraq war in Blue Inkblots.

I knew that it would be best to simply ignore the e-mail, but I was so angry that I just could not go silent any more. I started a new e-mail to my friend, and in the subject title, I put, "Tokyo Deanie."

I said, You know, (friend's name), my husband, brothers-in-law, brother, and father are all Vietnam vets. They know how I feel about this war, and I don't think a single one of them would refer to me as "Tokyo Deanie" because I speak out about it.

To protest the shameful manner in which this war has been managed is NOT the same thing as war propaganda designed to demoralize the enemy.

When my son fought in the Battle of Fallujah, he did not have proper body armor, up-armored vehicles, or even a decent scope for his rifle. He had all of those things when he deployed the second time--THREE YEARS AFTER THE WAR BEGAN. There is no telling how many good men they lost because of that during the first deployment.

If I say that I want troops to be brought home, it could be because many of them are being deployed for the FIFTH AND SIXTH TIMES. They are being deployed months ahead of schedule and forced to remain past their due-home dates--these are not "fresh troops" as the media claims. This is criminal.

There are many ways, I said, to "support the troops."

When Vietnam combat vet Republican Chuck Hagel spoke out against this president's war policies in the Senate, he said, "These are real people."

He meant, real people, as opposed to pawns on a political chess board. In his way, he was supporting the troops.

When Reagan Republican James Webb, a decorated Vietnam vet with a Marine son in Iraq, ran for the Senate on the Democratic ticket, wearing his son's combat boots so that he could get himself into a position of power to help change the course of this war--he was supporting the troops.

I told my friend that if he wanted to preserve our friendship, he would not send me any more inflammatory e-mails of that kind. I knew I had lost it and I knew I had possibly lost a friend over this, but one point of friendship is respecting boundaries. I feel so passionately about this war because, when it comes to war and a military family--POLITICS IS PERSONAL.

In a recent Army Times survey, a full SIXTY-SIX PERCENT of ACTIVE-DUTY MILITARY disagree with the way this war has been managed and more than half of them now doubt the wisdom of even going into Iraq.

To assume that "the troops" somehow march in lock-step and all agree with some kind of company line is an insult to the amazing variety of individuals that make up our armed services.

There are many conservatives in the military and there are just as many progressives. I've even read forwarded e-mails that claim that "most" of the military is conservative, as if somehow only conservatives love their country enough to enlist, and this is patent bullshit.

This may come as a shock to some of my conservative friends, but just because a mess hall full of soldiers is trooped in and draped as a backdrop to yet another presidential photo op does not mean that every single soldier or Marine in that room even wants to BE there.

My cries of outrage about this war never--EVER--call into question that incredible courage, duty, and superb job our fighting men and women do each and every day; and if you think that, you have not read all my posts.

I have, in fact, called for a national draft, because I think everyone should serve their country for at least a year or two out of high school, even if only helping clean up, say, New Orleans. Or working in support capacities back home. And, yes, for some, stepping up to help fight this war and take the burden off the weary shoulders of troops with multiple deployments.

As I've said many times, if this country wants to wave the flag and slap yellow ribbons on their cars and pump up their war-glamour news coverage and sell patriotic country and western songs urging us to go to war, then by God, EVERY family ought to take part in it.

I come from a proud military family. (My father is a retired Marine Corps Master Gunnery Sergeant and Vietnam vet; my brother also served in Vietnam.) I married into a proud military family--my husband and brother-in-law have three combat tours to Vietnam between them--and I have family members, including my own son, serving their country with pride and patriotism as I write these words. They rank from Marine lance corporal to Army Special Forces general--officers and enlisted alike, and every one serving in a combat capacity. I am deeply proud of their service and do everything in my power to support it, as they well know.

In family gatherings, I've had lengthy conversations with my active-duty family members, and gotten a broad perspective on this conflict, from men who know what they're talking about. They know that I respect them and their service, and that I am interested in knowing what THEY think needs to be done. Sometimes, they've been surprised at the depth of my own knowledge, at how I have educated myself on this war--most of the women in my family choose "not to know"--and they respect that my questions are informed and that I'm not just running around slapping peace sign bumper stickers on things.

As one Iraq vet put it, "There's a difference between being anti-war, and anti-THIS war."

You might be surprised, at some of their answers. I don't usually share them here, because this is a public forum, and they are still active-duty. I would never want anything I do or say to cause them any trouble in their careers. There are also security concerns that I must consider.

But as this war has progressed, I have found that we all agree on far more than we disagree on, and that, above all else, they know that all I want for them is for their service and sacrifice to be used with honor--not abused for political gain.

I believe this war was begun for the basest, most craven reasons, and then once we got in, the arrogance and hubris of those sending our men and women into combat--their refusal to seek truth on the ground, the bullying of officers who tried to speak up on behalf of the troops and were fired or shut down because of it, the selective appointment of yes-men to do their bidding, as well as the mad rush into a war for which we were ill-equipped or prepared, not to mention the politicizing of patriotism--is reason enough for those in power to burn in hell.

I have never asked that our troops be yanked out all of a piece and very very few Democrats in power today have asked for that, either. None of us wants to see the bloody savagery of an Iraq uncorked to spill over, but we do want to see this war fought with more brains and less muscle.

But the truth is that our troops are exhausted--their divorce rate has gone up to EIGHTY PERCENT. Our military equipment has been stretched to the breaking point through overuse and abuse; fighting men and women are being asked to take over the responsibilities of State Dept. staffers--doing things they are not trained to do--because the government can't get anybody to volunteer to go to Iraq; and the all-volunteer military has created a situation where ONLY ONE PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY HAS TO MAKE ANY WAR SACRIFICE AT ALL.

For Bush to claim that the rest of the country has somehow paid a "psychic price" is bullshit.

How about the "psychic price" of being flung back into battle every damn year of your life, of being forced to remain when your time in the service is up, of being lied to about when you're going to get to go home, of being yanked back into the service after you've already served multiple deployments to war and have gone on to build a civilian life--and then sent back in, even as your physical conditioning and training have lapsed?

How about the "psychic price" of not knowing who you can trust or even whether you can drive down the road for half a mile without a rock or dead dog exploding and blowing you and your buddies into oblivion? Or of being shot by a panicky, poorly-trained Iraqi Army soldier or unseen sniper? Of watching a friend die, and wondering…Why wasn't it me?

What about the "psychic price" of helping your 18-year old son write out a will to see who will receive his CDs and comic books "if anything happens to me," of discussing possible funeral arrangements with him, of quickly-snatched phone calls from overseas that, for all you know, may be your last conversation with your child, of living in terror every single day for the entire time your loved one is in a warzone?

And then getting to do it all over again?

And again?

And again?

What about the "psychic price" of helping your child deal with his rage and frustration and grief when he or she comes home? Some of them self-destruct with alcohol or other problems; some are never the same. Some seek help and can't get it because the military has been overwhelmed with returning war vets suffering post traumatic stress. Who pays THAT "psychic price"?

What about the "psychic price" of children growing up without parents--not just those who've been buried or gravely wounded--but those who've been gone and gone and gone again on repeated deployments that grow deadlier each time?

Bush says the American people's "souls have been sapped" by this war.

No, it's not the war. It's this kind of with-us-or-against-us bullshit that has sapped the country's soul, this ripping open of the old wounds left over from Vietnam--that if you oppose a mismanaged war, it then follows that you must hate the troops.

This administration started that kind of insidious sniping when they decided to start a war and use it as a weapon for political purposes. "With us" equals a vote for us, "against us" equals a vote for--not our opponent, but our ENEMY.

Bush even said, just a week before the November elections, that if you voted for a Democrat, you were siding with the terrorists.

This is disgraceful rhetoric from a sitting President of the United States.

As I told my friend in my e-mail, I am sick and tired of being accused of being unpatriotic or of hurting the troops because I am angry with the way they have been used in this war.

Recently, Republican Senator John McCain has begun making that sinister, mean little point that, if you do not support this president's so-called "surge" plan for the war, that you are saying, in effect, that you don't think the troops who are serving or have served have done a very good job, that they have failed in their job and that you are not supporting them.

He knows better than that, and I was disappointed and outraged to hear him start that old tired drumbeat yet again. Just in time for presidential politics, of course.

Other Republican politicians are following White House talking points on talk shows and in interviews, saying that if Democrats really want to end this war, they should vote to cut off funds for the troops. They know good and well that no one wants to do this--all they care about is crucifying Democrats in upcoming elections.

They like to wave the flag and pose and preen, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, do THEY really care about the troops?

Among those of us who have been voices crying out in the wilderness about this war--whose number has grown to a chorus--Not one of us has ever said that our troops are not doing the best damn job they could possibly do under impossible circumstances.

All we're saying is that they deserve a far better commander in chief, and something better than civilian leaders and cowardly career-driven top-down generals who have KNOWINGLY sent them into battle underequipped, undermanned, and underplanned because they didn't have the balls to speak up until they thought it was safe to do so and still keep their fat post-retirement defense-contracting jobs.

I'd say that the men and women on the ground have done a magnificent job under those circumstances.

I'm sick of this whole argument. Sick of the name-calling. Sick of the accusations and innuendoes and outright smears against anybody who does not echo White House talking points about this godforsaken war.

If it costs me a friend, well, then so be it. And if it helps in any way to bring these kids home on the date they were promised they'd get to come home, then it will have been worth it.