»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The Cindy Sheehan Saga
| The Alley |
|
The Cindy Sheehan Saga |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
As the ongoing protest of military mother Cindy Sheehan, which began August 7th, reels on in Crawford, Texas, not far from Bush's ranch where he is currently vacationing until the end of the month, the debate of the war in Iraq appears to be shifting more toward the feeling of the war among the family more than simply among the minds of our politicians. Meanwhile, Sheehan has also become a controversial face, as new accusations from right-wing sources, including questioning thoughts of previous positions in the past on the war, calling her actions "borderline treasonous" and that she is "exploiting her son's loss" have emerged, sparking a debate of the nature of her protest. ******************************** I have nothing but fond respect for what Sheehan is doing. She is merely a grieving mother who lost a child in this war, and surely it is never uncommon to question in the aftermath if it is worth what he or she was fighting for. Cindy Sheehan is a most patriotic mother, whose son gave this country everything, who she herself obviously wished nothing but the best for her son Casey. The right-wing assault on this poor mother is shameful beyond comprehension. She's protesting in a peaceful manner, she isn't wishing no harm to anyone, yet while these numerous personalities could be standing with her and sympathizing with her loss and giving her the moment to talk and have questions answered, they rather decide to energize an atomic smear campaign against her and against all the conscious believers who share her grief: *** 1) http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7549 The Conservative Voice accuses Cindy of exploiting her sons loss: "The shameless opportunist exploiting Casey is his own mother, Cindy Sheehan." 2) Bill O'Reilly said this on the August 9 edition of "The O'Reilly Factor" that Cindy "has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country" and "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq ... feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous." 3) http://www.moveamericaforward.org/ Move America Forward has begun the "You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy! Tour" 4) Waco residents are making an effort to assemble a petition to force "Camp Sheehan" to be moved seven miles from the ranch, against the wishes of their Constitutional rights of Assembly and Petitionm for Redress of Grievances, as mentioned under the 1st and 14th Amendments. ***** http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20426 In another isolated incident, a vandal, Larry Nothern, was charged for driving his pickup truck over a wooden cross memorial at the Sheehan site. ***** These, among other efforts, are just example to how far these sorts of personalities will go to stamp out righteous dissent in this nation, even if it means disgracing the family of one who served. I'm under the impression no matter who criticizes this senseless war, these personalities will never hesitate to use the same tactics. I for one am most proud to honor Sheehan for her efforts (I attended several Sheehan vigils in Portland last night) and I hope the feelings of this war can increasingly come from the family rather than just the politicians themselves, who we've already known well their heels are bolted to the ground on this issue. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (08-18-2005 02:46 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I have a problem with her assertion that Bush is in the pocket of Zionists and oil interests. http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg_200508160828.asp "If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?" Sheehan answered, "I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing." "But Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban, was harboring al Qaeda, which is the group that attacked us on 9/11," Matthews said. "Well, then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not the country of Afghanistan," Sheehan said.’ http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200508180920.asp |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
She was a grieving mother who met with the President last year and gave high marks to President Bush. A year later, and she reversed her position a full 180 degrees. Then she allies herself with MoveOn.org and Michael Moore, who are managing her protest, providing food, shelter, clothing, facilities, providing PR people, and providing managers and other representatives. Though her grief be valid, she has forsaken her husband, her son, her two daughters and blames President Bush for not just killing her son but also for using her son's death as a soapbox, the very thing she herself is doing. She has quite failed to mention that he volunteered. He finished one deployment and volunteered again for a second. He was killed trying to rescue other soldiers. He is a hero to those people. Instead of honoring that, his mother drags his record through the mud, and blames President Bush for his death instead of the insurgent who fired the killing round. He was an adult and he made his choices and stood by them. Though (soon to be) Ms. Sheenan originally was grieving, now that is no longer the case. She is grandstanding, basking in her 15 minutes of fame, and is denigrating the service of tens of thousands of servicemen/women. And if I met with someone, then a year later they completely reversed their story, then slandered me, I would have no compulsion at all to meet with that person again, especially if I knew everything I said would be torqued and posted on a blog belonging to an extremely disingenous political documentary [sic] maker. All those Vietnam era protestors who called to 'bring our boys home' then spat on them when they came back will no doubt do the same here. While the military defends and protects their Constitutional rights and priviledges, what are the protestors doing for the military servicemen/women to secure their rights and priviledges? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'm assuming Goldberg is referring to her quote, "My Son Joined the Army to Protect America, Not Israel" when he even bothers mentioning Zionists and oil barons in the article (and where does she say zionists?) Sheehan can say what she wants about Israel or what have you. I wouldn't agree with her there, and would only agree with the latter part on oil barons, but her feelings on Israel are not the central issue here, and I just hope she believes both Israel and Palestine have the shared right to co-exist together. I certainly don't believe Cindy Sheehan is above reproach. If the protests go out of hand and get violent or take on some uglier theme, I myself would begin to question the integrity of them and think more skeptically of Sheehan. I believe at this time her protest remains in excellent taste, and these personalities attack her anyway just for questioning the war. And I think they look weak in doing that. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
That claim she pulled a 180 turn within a year is nothing but a lie being perpetuated by the media (and thank you for reminding me). http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/08/08/20050808_141400_flash4.htm Matt Drudge began this misinformation on August 8th, the day after Cindy began her protest, using quotes from this June 24, 2004 article of The Reporter, a newspaper from Cindy's hometown. What Matt failed to do was also note, in that same article, the following: The June 24, 2004, Reporter article also quoted Sheehan expressing her misgivings about Bush and the Iraq war: "We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached." The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place. But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election." * Also, Sheehan was referring not to her meeting with Bush, but her trip to Seattle, where she spoke of "the gift the president gave us". Cindy has been consistent on her skeptical stance toward the war. And even if she did change her feeling, many Americans have slowly begun to understand the truth of this senseless war, and so their feelings change as well obviously. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
http://www.thereporter.com/republished Article from Vacaville, CA 'The Reporter', dated 6/24/04 0600 It would appear that the Sheehans gave their story to the newspaper there. So who's engaging in misinformation? Here's more stories if interested: http://www.thereporter.com/sheehan |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
What's your point exactly? If you're trying to show how she has impugned the honor of America and our troops, the article clearly shows how she has been a frequent visitor to soldier honorings nationwide and how much they enkoy the meetings. If you're trying to show how she has made a 180 turn in terms of her stance on Bush and Iraq, this article also reveals that quotation I shared not being happy with the war, and as I hope anyone could do, try and find some good and solace in a meeting or situation, and I believe she made an effort to be respectful while holding her personal thoughts of Iraq then. Beyond that, I don't see it as a big deal whatsoever that someone's thought on something like a struggling foreign operation would evolve or change over time anyway. If you're a politician and you're often flip-flopping to the point no one understands where you stand, that's one thing. But an everyday American family man or woman who had a child killed or injured in this tragic war; I believe they are justified to think less of the war and our leadership now than they did before if so it is. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
This is my point. I understand how views can change with the passage of time. But to say one thing, then later deny you said anything, then to lambast the very person to took time to see you, that speaks volumes to me about lack of character. She even had pictures on her personal website of her and the President, before those mysteriously disappeared. link Grief is grief, and lies are lies. Say what you will of President Bush, he takes it as a personal obligation to visit with families of fallen soldiers. I wish he didn't have to see so many, but he does. And so he does. And so his advisors try to fit as many families in as possible. And the media is never invited. He took the time to privately speak with her, at her request. Not everybody gets that opportunity. She did. She spoke warmly of the time, at first, then drastically changed her story. I do have to wonder into the impetus of that shift. Was it her own personal impulse, or was she promised something by certain 527s and documentary types? She was a mother of 4 and is now a mother of 3. What about those 3? What about her husband of 20someodd years? Yes, she lost her son. Yes, I grieve for her loss. Yes, I support the troops, something she does not. If you think she does, reconcile her own statement of 'this country is not worth defending' when speaking of the USA link (warning: long). What I attempted prior, which you conveniently ignored, was her hometown paper reporting her story, which you stated was a fabrication and smear campaign trumpteted by Matt Drudge and other conservatives. Well, you didn't ignore it. You took a look, saw my points, then said 'so what?' when I was only trying to show Drudge and others weren't engaged in misinformation and misconstrual of phraseology. You'll believe what you believe, and I'll believe what I want to believe, and that's about that. I do respect you, Noah. You are anti-war, and that's fine. What you aren't is anti-war when the cameras are rolling, or when it's convenient. You're anti-war consistently, and I admire your tenacity and spirit. You talk the talk, then walk the walk. And that speaks volumes about character. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Had Casey Sheehan been killed in a drive-by shooting on the streets of America, I think it highly unlikely his mother would be selected for jury duty. For much the same reason, I feel her voice in forming national policies is, at best, of questionable value. Sadly, I think her threat to camp on the President's doorstep until he meets with her crosses the line and is little more than extortion. On the other hand, all this talk of her changing positions or not taking care of her family is nothing but irrelevant misdirection. Who cares? Einstein probably changed one or two equations in his time, and the poor man wasn't very good at taking care of himself let alone anyone else, but none of that makes E=MC^2 any less true. Sheehan's points should stand or fall on their own merit, not on how good someone else is at character assassination. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6975 quote: This quote probably won't make much sense until you check out this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19186 quote: Does anybody else hear Screwtape in that last line? And if anybody is willing to read this far, let's add one more: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=13737 quote: So, why is the Raging Right going nuts over this person? Why the need to discredit her? She isn't saying something that hasn't been said before. I think the answer is simple. It's because she is not Moveon.org, not Michael Moore, not the editor of "The Nation", not some fool living on a small island far, far away. She's not a member of the perceived elite; the Right knows how to handle these types, knows how to discredit, to ignore, to mock, and enflame others against these types. No, the difference is simple enough: She's a mother who lost a child. She is on record as showing respect for the president, she's supposed to be one of those who the Right enflames, never one who flames them. Perhaps, because she has no real claim to authority or expertise, she should be listened to. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: What happened to listening to someone because they made sense? Or refusing to listen to them because they don't? Neither authority nor expertise can make someone right or wrong. Again, the arguments must stand or fall on their own merit. Everything else is just meaningless rhetoric? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's a great idea. Show me if you can find any substance below: quote: |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Alicat, I thank you very much for your personal compliments, despite our disagreements, but I also want to say I want to add this, which Cindy has said herself in a memo to Drudge; that it was never about her from the beginning, it's about the war. I believe Drudge and others are trying to make this about her instead of Iraq, obviously, because it's getting worse in Iraq and these particular personalities from the right fear that reality. So they're engaging in efforts of character assassination not just to keep Iraq war dissent at bay, but to keep the issue of Iraq from coming from a personal standpoint, which I believe Sheehan has been hugely successful in bringing back the debate on Iraq to a family standpoint. It wouldn't even matter if I was doing what Sheehan was doing, and obviously have been anti-war from the beginning. These personalities would still be running these same smear tactics no matter what, just because I don't believe in this foreign policy, where tens of thousands have been tragically killed. Can't you see that? Cardboard cutouts aren't killed in war; people are killed in war. Cindy's coped with a loss of her own and she's been haunted with questions of what Casey was fighting for to begin with, and if it was worth fighting for. And she's doing what she's doing without any quick response team, without a multi-million dollar campaign, it's just her. She's controlling the protest in a peaceful manner. There's a character itself in that. People are complaining that she thought differently in the past. Hey, hasn't Bush too? In fact, I believe he said when Clinton invaded Bosnia during his presidency (which I'd also outspokenly oppose if I were politically active then), "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." I can go on and on saying how that is one of the worst flip-flops ever and what not, but what I am most interested in is the consequences of this type of thinking, where more keep getting killed everyday needlessly and we have to find that light at the end of this long tunnel. I believe Sheehan is also being most mindful of the consequences too under what this administration is doing in foreign policy. Finally, my prayers go out to Sheehan's family as her mother rests in a Los Angeles hospital after her sudden stroke. Bless you all! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Every time Cindy Sheehan tries to adduce another writ against the current administration (a.k.a., "Bush crime family," "evil bastards in the administration," "(edit) hypocrites," "biggest terrorist in the world") — whether demanding a second private presidential meeting before so many other grieving families have had even one, or blaming Israel for the deaths of American soldiers — it has the opposite effect of what she intends. Under the sad logic of biteback, she reverses her own original position from the legitimate lament of a grieved mother trying to make sense out of the tragic loss of her brave son, to a deeply disturbed object of cynical partisan manipulation by the Michael Moore/Moveon.org Left.” http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508190815.asp [This message has been edited by Alicat (08-19-2005 03:37 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Wow, Huan yi, thanks, I was going to go to the National Review today. You've saved me some time. In Cindy's words: quote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/memo-to-drudge-et-al-it_b_5868.html |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
These accusations of Sheehan being anti-Semitic, etc. are baseless and I believe these particular personalities are only embarrassing themselves in continuing to assassinate her character at this angle, from that and from the Wellstone comparisons, etc. And if in fact her protest does take on some anti-Semitic theme or something, then yes, I will certainly think less of her as an anti-war heroine and more of a desperate radically-minded spirit. But the fact these accusations are being thrown out at this point in time, where I also doubt she is anti-Semitic, are just making these personalities look weak. Going to the beginning of that article where he speaks of "schaudenfreude", that's precisely what these personalities want to do to any voice of dissent against this war, whether it may be a liberal politician, Chuck Hagel, a military mother, a high school student or Buster the Rabbit. They are employing these "schaudenfreude tactics" on those with questions, whether they feel strongly against innocent people being killed or merely want to generate deeper dialogue. It has yet to be seen whether Sheehan will truly be the spiking horse of the kinetic anti-war movement, which is already very strong here, or if this particular incident will have its fifteen minutes of fame. I absolutely believe, being the optimistic spirit I am, that if Sheehan can keep disciplining this protest under the theme of Iraq and keep the issue from turning to herself, she will win the hearts of more and more and will find her place in history, and by the end of this season young people and families alike may finally break the silence and take to the streets in solidarity, calling for a withdrawal plan and end to the war. Personally, I believe Sheehan may be making an accidental point out of this protest as well; the fact that Bush won't walk out off his front porch and talk with her for an hour or so shows how non-inclusive he is and how he only seems attached to his inner circles, how he seems to care more about this war than our troops and their families. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Well, I think I'd like to demand an hour of the President's time too. Then Maybe next year I'd like to demand another. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And how many children would you be willing to lose for two hours with the president? quote: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/16/deceptive_talk_about_iraq/ |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Brad, she has had here time with the President. There are many other grieving parents out there just as deserving as her and I suspect most of them have as much knowledge of foreign affairs and policy. There is absolutely no reason for him to see her again as he already knows everything she wants to say. Hell, we all do. As for sacrificing children for the privilege, I doubt she had that reasoning. Anyway, I served my 3 years in the Army and my 2 sons each served 4 years in the Navy. I am happy that we all survived but we certainly were exposed to danger. That still does not give any of us the inherent right to demand a presidential audience. Extortion be damned, and that is exactly what she (or more properly moveon.org and michael moore) is trying to use. There are many more important item for the President to deal with. I deeply sympathize with her loss but have absolutely no sympathy or tolerance for her lunatic endeavor. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm sure no one wants to set a price on the life of a human being, Brad. Nor is that the point. Sheehan's demands are still demands and amount to extortion. I think the Administration is showing uncharacteristic restraint by not slapping her butt in jail. Her loss and grief have bought her that much consideration. It doesn't matter whether Sheehan is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what she has lost or why she is motivated to step forward now. The lady has every right to state her opinions and tell her story, but she has absolutely NO right to force anyone, even an elected official, to listen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, Pete, what is wrong with asking for clarification? Ron, I simply have no idea what you mean. Do you care at all? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's another point I'd like to make here, regarding the approach to this issue these personalities from the right are taking. So they're all angry about this mother expressing her views and criticizing the war, yet they remain quiet about Larry Northern driving his pickup truck over the wooden cross memorial at Camp Casey and Larry Mattlage intimidating the protesters with shotgun fire and says he was preparing for "dove-hunting season". These particular personalities are always burning in rage when they hear people opposed to an amendment to burn flags and of activists descecrating memorials and what not, yet they're acting here as though it's OK just as long as you're doing it to intimidate or disgrace anti-war protesters. You can bet if it was known that a liberal activist had known what Larry Northern did, the media would be screaming their heads off. Assuming that these protests remain peaceful at Camp Casey, it's those two Larrys that have done the most vandalizing near Bush's ranch than any of Sheehan's fans at the site. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
No, Brad, there's nothing wrong with asking for clarification. There's a great deal wrong with resorting to threats if your request for clarification isn't met. Noah, all you're doing is fighting irrelevancies with more irrelevancies. You want a point to be heard? Focus on that point to the exlusion of all else. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There is a relevancy in this, let me have the moment to explain it further. I'm a very accepting liberal myself, as are many on both the left and the right of the aisle. Please note that as I am referring to these "right personalities", which I sometimes like to call the "Angry Right", I am not using metonymy. There are many friends of mine whose politics lean to the right who I respect and openly embrace my differing views and dissent in a comely fashion, as there are Republicans like George Allen who have been understanding to Cindy and are respecting her space. I'm referring to the personalities who claim to be representing the right, who I feel are hijacking it, as the "Angry Right". I'm referring to the Ann Coulter-Move America Forward right, the type of right whose mission seems to be to suppress voices of dissent, including smearing the purity of protests like Cindy Sheehan's. There are many wonderful, admirable conservatives, both of old school conservative methodology and those who aren't "Bushbots", who aren't part of this "Angry Right". Indeed there is an "Angry Left" as well. Often I hear voices of the right refer to the "MoveOn.org, Michael Moore left". I do agree with MoveOn and Michael Moore more often than I disagree with what they have to say, and I rather like to think of the "Angry Left" as communities like Indymedia, which is a disturbing bed of radical leftism. That Ward Churchill type of faction is the Angry Left to me. The bad news is, many of the most prominent figures from the right (or claim to be of the right) across our media landscape are of this faction and what they are doing to Sheehan and other voices of dissent is beyond shameful. The point in bringing up the Larrys earlier was that while on and on there's been so much outrage over those opposing the flag burning amendment and scream against all instances of troop and memorial smearing, in that particular instance of vandalism, these same personalities, rather than going after the usual suspects, instead shout at Sheehan and others in their pure protest, and that strikes my curiosity in an uneasy way. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I don't think that threatening to protest amounts to extortion. I call that freedom of expression. And negotiation. As far as I know her demonstration is entirely within her Constitutional and Statutory rights. I know of nothing that's been done that's been illegal. Even if so, it's no more than civil disobedience. I haven't seen any suicide bombers eminating from the Sheehan camp. While I'm inclined to disagree with Sheehan's conclusions her premise isn't exactly off the mark. I don't think that anyone in a position to make policy is in agreement with her conclusions either-- certainly not the administration, certainly not the Democrats, who, with the exception of maybe Ted Kennedy -- aren't advocating a cut and run philosophy. From Dean to Biden to Clinton (Senator) the litany is the same -- we've made a mess in Iraq -- we have to stay until we can achieve some level of stability -- I'm not sure how that's supposed to happen though - and I don't know how you look into a parent's eyes and say your son, your daughter has to stick it out now and risk their life because we've made an utter mess of things. The only way is to explain very simply -- that even though the premise we entered the war under was false -- it's very much true now that Iraq is a hotbed for terrorist training... 3000 trained Iraqi forces is a dismal showing... if Rumsfeld was the ceo of a corporation he'd be fired... it's that simple -- on the upside Iraq policy has been shifted out of his hands to Rice -- I don't know if that will work out better or not -- but it certainly would have worked better if Powell had been handling it -- let's just hope the auspices of the State Department are better suited for building a nation than the department that's designed to break nations. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The president opened the door by already talking to her. If she is not allowed to ask for clarification, then George is allowed to use people as propaganda and they will be jailed for, well, being people. Ron, I still don't get it. I don't see how your first position (Stick to the ideas) and this new one mesh. You're allowed to change your mind of course.  (Oh wait, am I being condescending again?)  |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2124788/?nav=tap3 |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey, I can quote Hitchins again: quote: Now, look at how things are shaping up in Iraq even with out presence there -- look at the, as yet unratified constitution, and tell me that what will happen if we leave. A civil war? An Iran/Iraq alliance? A theocracy? A new dictatorship? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
already a civil war already Iran/faction alliances, 13,000 Iranian infiltrators poured over the borders as soon as we moved in... which is problematic considering we're rattling sabres at Iran at present -- a threat on which this President has no credibility because we're already pinned down in Iraq.. but it begs the question... a Theocratic government where women have less rights than they had under Saddam Hussein already seems to be the order. a new dictatorship would be very difficult to pull off -- you left out the fifth scenario -- a fractured and factional Iraq. Whether or not the government is a theocracy is hardly the issue now -- it's stability and the ability to control terrorist training. Can't let it turn into Taliban Afghanistan. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Exactly. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2299 quote: Good questions, no? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think those are great political questions Brad... but they don't do much for us in the area of ops. The really important question is, regardless of original intent, past mistakes, missed opportunities, what is -- given the facts on the ground right now in Iraq -- the correct course of action for the people of the United States and whatever is left of the coalition? It may be so that Micheal Moore is right -- cut and run -- but his foreign policy experience is equal to Rush Limbaugh's, I'm inclined more to listen the groundswell of consensus that is emerging among the leadership of the country -- Republicans and Democrats -- politics aside. But that includes re-ordering the Gantt chart with clearer, achievable objectives. Oh.. there's that clarification word ... Look for a major push from the culture war crowd to attempt to push this issue out of the conciousness of the American people. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
oh, and... I'll bet you 5 bucks the button they push is going to be illegal immigration. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Fine, Noah. If you want to talk about the Left and the Right, the Liberals and Conservatives, the Angry and the merely Irritated, and all the thousand and one other meaningless labels that make you feel comfortable, you should certainly feel free to do so. I honestly don't think those are on a grieving mother's agenda, though. Some, I suspect, think the war is a tad more important to discuss than more finger-pointing politics. quote: There's nothing wrong with protesting, LR. Unless you insist on doing it outside my front door and refuse to leave me alone until I meet your demands. Sheehan has a right to a voice. Others, even elected officials, have a right to ignore her voice if they choose. In a very, very small way, I've been the target of similar attacks. People think that sending me an email puts me under some obligation to respond, and one or two have gotten down right irate I don't see it that way. With three to five thousand emails arriving every day, I answer what I can when I can and pretty much ignore anything that doesn't absolutely require an answer. While most people are very understanding, a few in the past have decided to email me the same question a dozen times a day, every day, with threats to continue until I answer them. It's very frustrating when someone thinks they should have the power to place others under some obligation to them. In my opinion, there are many many things Sheehan has a right to demand. Someone else's time isn't one of them. quote: They're entirely separate issues, Brad, so your confusion is well warranted. People who try to discredit Sheehan's concerns with utter irrelevancies discredit only themselves and not her concerns. If they can't "stick to the ideas," as you put it, I for one have to assume they have no arguments to counter what Sheehan is claiming. On the other hand, I am in no way trying to discredit Sheehan's concerns. I think they're valid and need to be raised. I just don't think she's the one to do it, and I certainly don't think she's doing it in the right way. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The pro-war culture won't need a push, Local Rebel, all they need is a distraction. And when the Roberts hearings begin in less than two weeks, which everyone will understandably want to tune into, that'll work just fine in the effort to make the Sheehan saga a short-lived effort. Distractions and changing of the story have been precisely the two tactics which this administration have kept using time and time and time again since invading Iraq two years and a half ago in the desperate effort to defend their failing, dishonest war effort. Now Bush is so desperate he's going to be comparing this war to World War II several times in the next two weeks in speeches, just as he once again blatantly exploited 9/11 in his radio address this weekend. Part of me believes because I've grown to know exactly how stubborn Bush is, I was never surprised that he never agreed to the meeting with her. Yet I also believe it was exactly that attitude that's only going to legitimize the voice of Cindy Sheehan, and I believe its truly thanks to Bush that she has become not only a symbol of the anti-war movement but a household name as well, as well as the voice of political accountability. It seems rather clear to me now that Bush cares about this war more than he cares about our troops and families. I truly believe deep in my heart everyone has this place deep in themselves that deep down admits something is wrong with the picture, and with a little act of faith they can make the decision to believe in what's sound. That war is itself terror, real people are killed in war each day, each moment, and is not the answer to offering the freedoms to others we have cherished for generations that all the corners of the world so deservedly need, that war only generates more tension and repression which only cancels freedom's calling out. I pray and remain hopeful it's not too late that this administration can listen before they make a catastrophic, irreversible mistake and in the eyes of the world, the true colors of freedom will not obfuscate from this misguided mission. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't really buy the analogy, Ron, but whatever. It just feels trivial to me. Cindy is not Rosa Parks, nor should she be, she's a normal(?!) woman stating the truth about the war. She's not a heroine, not an historical figure, nor should she be. If it falls apart in a few weeks, it falls apart, I don't think it's that important. We need more people like Cindy who state the bleeding obvious, we need more people to listen to people like Cindy who state the bleeding obvious. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: That's called politics Noah. The analysis you're failing to make is why is Sheehan so frightening to the political right? And why IS she, now, a historical figure and not just a woman expressing her opinion? It isn't merely the fact that her protest is coincidental to the most dramatic shift in public opinion about the war in Iraq -- it's that she takes away from the Cons the ability to make people feel sympathy for the troops - she garners all the sympathy in an anti-war direction. They can't call her a traitor like they do anybody else who speaks out against the administration. This comes on the heels of Hackett's strong showing in a heavily Republican district in Ohio calling the President a chicken hawk. All of this is problematic for YOUR party though Noah. The leading contender for the Presidential nomination in 08, Hillary -- voted to relinquish her Constitutional authority to declare war and put it in the hands of this President -- as did the vast majority of other Democrats -- it's the whole for it before I was against it problem all over again... But I think there are some legitimate points that can be made. And it's really interesting to look at -- I should probably post it -- who all the chicken hawks are and the difference in opinion those who actually served in wars like Chuck Hagel and John McCain have with them. But the Roberts issue is a non-issue -- it's going to get some traction -- but unless there's a photo of him having sex with Osama Bin Laden somewhere it's just not a big story. He's a conservative, nominated by a conservative President. It's not a story Noah. Giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants -- that's a story. quote: It would be nice if the world was always convenient. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The Democratic Party is currently not my party, Local Rebel. They have done nothing but failed to unite together and be the party to represent the other 49% who came out to vote last November. Many of the Democrats who are tentative favorites to run in 2008 may think Bush is handling the war in the wrong way, but beyond that, they are no making any effort to change the pace of the direction Iraq is headed. I have said before why I believe the so-called specific "Angry Right" in my mind is afraid of Cindy Sheehan, and it is very simple and has been mentioned already not just by myself but by Brad as well; she doesn't sprout out of the elite, she's just a grieving American mother who's been through the experience of loss herself and understands where it wells from. They're also afraid of her because, due to that, I believe she is successfully shifting the viewpoint of this war from the minds of Bush to a split-screen effect, contrasting how Bush feels and how one military mother feels. This sort of split-screen attitude has been long overdue and because she has risen up to represent that other half of the screen, THAT'S why she is developing into a household name. I hope the Democrats together understand what Sheehan is saying. I know some have, just like Chuck Hagel and George Allen have in the GOP. But with the way Hilary Clinton continues to display herself as hawkish, along with just about every other Democrat considering a run for '08, they look weak and if the election were held today, I believe I wouldn't vote for Hilary. I have much more in common with the current Democratic party than the current Republican party, but I'm an independent right now, and at this snail-pace the Democratic Party is going in getting out of the woods and finally getting the big picture, I don't believe I'll be converted into an official Democrat by 2008. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
There's a new point I'd like to bring up that's not necessarily about Sheehan individually, but anti-war protesters in general, and that's a response to two statements made yesterday, the first from Bush in saying that anti-war protesters like myself don't represent the views of most U.S military families and are advocating a cause that are making the U.S weaker, and the second from MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell suggesting that those who oppose the war are "anti-war extremists". First and foremost, I'm just saddened that Bush could say those like myself are weakening the U.S because we either condemn the innocent killing of thousands in foreign policy or because we believe there are better solutions to cleansing the world of darkness rather than with war and are trying to generate that sort of dialogue. Naturally, war is, itself, terror. People die in war just as people die in all these unfortunate car bombings. People live through fear and trauma in war. Having said that, I do not consider Bush a terrorist by any means. I simply believe he is just terribly ignorant and/or misguided about how foreign policy works. Historically intervention has time and time again generated tension and instability, which is what is escalating right now in the region. Furthermore, I believe Bush lacks the experience, the wisdom of life on the field. I've come to believe that being mindful, flexible and ethical are the three essential qualities that should frame a mission. Unfortunately, when failing to be mindful, ethical and flexible gets in the way in foreign policy, it can have most devastating consequences, send the wrong message to other cultures. I don't believe, in my opinion at least, that it should free him from punishment and accountability for this most wrongful crime, but I don't consider him a terrorist by any means. However, I also fear in many eyes of the world that Bush is being perceived as a great threat to the world, communties which don't endorse terror, which I fear of that and we can't allow this great nation to grow further isolated from the international community. My response to Bush is, simply, I'm really trying to help him. I'm disobeying his reckless foreign policy but am helping him by trying to open his ears to what can really happen consequentially, to try and stop him from making a colossal mistake that is irreversible, without him ever even knowing it. I believe if anything, dissent makes the nation much stronger, for it completes the resolve of democracy. ***** And secondly, in response to O'Donnell, to call those who oppose this war "extremist" is outrageous. If that were true, a slight majority of the nation would be extremist for believing it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq. A slight majority of the nation would be extremist for believing this war was not worth it. A majority would be extremist for disapproving of the way Bush is handling the war right now. The general attitude of the war favors those who either oppose or disapprove it collectively. Having said that, I also certainly would never call everyone who supports the war currently "extremist", as I believe most out there like Bush are just strongly misguided. I believe deep down in my heart that there's a place where someone knows and feels something is wrong and they have the power to do the right thing, which many have already found the faith to do and I absolutely believe more will do and that it is not too late in doing so. OK, that's all, just thought it important to note that out. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"all these unfortunate car bombings." That's golden. . . |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I don't understand, Huan Yi, I believe you may have either thought too deeply into that specific part or misinterpreted it. I don't deny there are those who live with just deep hatred in their hearts and engage in these terrible acts of martyrdom, so their mission is just to inflict fear and malice on the innocent. When I said what I said there, I meant "unfortunate" in that cultures still have to live through this chaos on and on, with some of it being due to children and future generations being influenced by radical ideals and misinterpretations, as well as amends struggling to be made through the times. It is so scary to see all these radical militants making their way through the borders and joining the radical forces. It is so scary to see militias from all the groups in Iraq intimidating one another with militias. I fear indeed the people there, about 60% of whom are children 14 years or younger, are going to continue to grow up in-between the crossfire of civil dispute in the years ahead. And indeed, it is most unfortunate that this will all but certainly happen from the growing instability of the region. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
There seem to be three positions on what to do: Cindy: Leave now Bush: Don't talk about it. Mickey Kaus (from Slate): Phased withdrawal I'm not sure I see a difference in scenarios (at least in terms of the future of Iraq) between the first and third options. Can someone explain to me the plus points of a phased withdrawal? |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
