City Council thrashed by constituents against Iraq War debate

Fourteen speakers made their way to the lectern at the start of the council’s meeting with all but one opposed to a proposal to hold a public meeting on the war.

“What troubles me most is that we have had a lot of speakers here tonight asking that you not hold this debate, but I can see that three of you–and that’s all it takes–have already made up your minds and that angers me quite a bit,” said Tony Sliwick.

At issue is a proposal endorsed by four council members at their meeting two weeks ago to have City Manager Nelson Fialho develop a plan for a public meeting. Councilwoman Cindy McGovern voted again the plan, arguing that there are too many other priorities for the council to consider already.

“We’re not sure how this will be done, but many in the community have asked us to address the war in Iraq and that’s what we intend to do,” said Mayor Jennifer Hosterman. “We might have historians from local colleges or someone from the local media serve as the moderator. We’ll find out on the 20th.”

he nearly two hours of speaker comments followed an opening statement by Councilman Matt Sullivan that included a minute of silence to honor of those killed in Iraq. Previously, activist Fred Norman, who has long called for the council to “do something” about the war, has used one minute of his allotted five minutes of speaking time at the start of council meetings to silently remember those killed in the war since the previous council meeting.

“Would we honor a Pleasanton police officer who was killed in the line of duty in service of our city?” he asked. “Of course we would. Why can’t we apply this to every man and woman who dies in Iraq?”

Many of those who spoke Tuesday night were parents or spouses of soldiers now in Iraq, or recently returned from there.

Karen Wind read an emotional letter from Lee Bergeson, a Pleasanton resident and mother of four you couldn’t attend Tuesday’s meeting because one of her children was sick. Bergeson’s husband Steve, a Marine, served in Iraq in 2003 and expects to be redeployed there in August.

“My husband and I want you to know that it is crucial to have the support of the American people for us to win the war on terror,” Bergeson wrote. “We are willing to make the sacrifice. Can we count on your support?”

Bergeson criticized the “constant bashing of our president,” which she described as an assault on our military effort that is intended to cause us defeat.

Businessman Dan Faustina, who finished third in his bid for a City Council seat last November, losing to Councilman Jerry Thorne and newly-elected Cheryl Cook-Kallio, said the council has enough on its plate without delving into national and international issues, such as the war in Iraq.

“As a former candidate, I can say that we never once discussed our views on the war,” he said. “The council does not have the expertise to discuss this issue nor should the taxpayers have to pay for our city staff to research this issue. You have enough to do here without adding this to your plate.”

Speakers also warned that a council-sponsored discussion of the war could “tear the community apart,” requiring members of the council and others in the city to take a partisan stand on this controversial issue.

“Consider the ramifications of going down this road,” Faustina said. “How many people will it affect? How divided will our community become?”

Judy Dollard agreed.

“This goes way beyond the scope of a local City Council,” she said. Some council members who want this topic discussed think it should be nonpartisan. It won’t be. You were elected to serve the people of Pleasanton and your opinions on the war should be kept to yourselves.”

“My beloved son Ian, 20, is a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps infantry,” Dollard said. “He arrived in Iraq a few days ago on his second deployment and in a place far more dangerous than his first. If he knew about this City Council plan, he would be disgusted, saying you have no clue over what goes on over there.”

“Being a mother of a United States Marine and being aware he is in harm’s way right this minute is the only thing I care about,” she added. “I don’t have the emotional energy for a debate.”

Army veteran Doug Miller said the council’s plan to debate the war would play into the enemy’s hand. While fighting in Vietnam, he recalled anti-war rally posters from San Francisco State University that the North Vietnamese placed on trees in the jungle.

They thought it would be effective,” Miller said. “Since the end of the Vietnam war, the Vietnamese have written extensively about how important America’s anti-war movement was in maintaining the morale of their troops. They just kept hanging on until we left.”

He criticized both Hosterman for signing an anti-war poster last year and Councilman Sullivan for suggesting the public forum on the war would be typical of New England town meetings.

“You infer that a discussion of the war is a free speech issue, but it’s not,” Miller told Sullivan. “No one is being marched off to jail for talking about the war. Instead, it an issue of judgment, and very poor judgment in the midst of a war.”

Miller said that if the council proceeds with its plan to hold a pubic forum on the war, he won’t attend and urged other in the community to do the same.

Hosterman said she appreciated hearing the comments at Tuesday’s meeting, but noted that they were mostly one-sided. She said the meeting plan and format will be discussed at the council meeting on Feb. 20, when more of the public will have an opportunity to give their views on the council’s plan.