posted by Jonathan Potts at
I don't much care for her, but (I can't believe I'm saying this) Anne Coulter might have the final word on Mrs. Sheehan and her publicist (yes, she hired a full-time publicist).www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=71
That column reminds me of a saying: Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Very clever blog name, by the way. I'll be anxiously awaiting your first post.
I shall never post anything on that infernal blog. The new bylaws of Jonathan's HE MAN WOMAN HATERS CLUB forbid commenting anonymously.The name o' my blog is a retort to the new rule.
I feel badly for the losses suffered by Ms Sheehan and Mr. Griffin. However, turning the deaths of soldiers and the reactions of their families into a he said/she said seems a bit silly.
I think the point is that Ms. Sheehan has no more claim on the president's time than any other Gold Star parent, and a lot of them feel much differently than she does. As much as I hate this war and don't like this president, Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve his country, and he assumed all the risks that entailed.
Exactly. Every soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who joined or re-enlisted after 9/11 knew he or she likely would see combat far from home.Spc. Casey Sheehan re-enlisted with 1 Cav and died doing what he trained to do. He didn't even have to go to Iraq right away. He volunteered for combat duty.While I certainly would never begrudge Ms. Sheehan her grieving, I can't help but believe her son wouldn't see his death as some sop to Israel, oil interests or whatever other bugaboo Moveon.org has invented for his mother to rattle off.By her own words, Ms. Sheehan not only sought to keep her son from joining the army, but encouraged him several times to desert and exit his country for Canada.She has continued to support deserters, including leading rallies for Pablo Paredes, who is being tried by court martial for refusing to board a ship loaded with 300 Marines bound for Iraq.I can't help but think this cheapens the honorable service of her son and infantalizes the decisions of a grown man.He died at 26, but she refers to him as a "man child" and preens before cameras with his baby pictures raised for all to see.He was a man, not a "man child." He made his decisions. He lived, and died, by the consequences of these beliefs. He was a professional warrior within a band of fellow warriors, and he took a "soldier's chance" to serve with them.When does Casey get to defend himself from his mother's debasement of him?
I don't necessarily disagree that the president can't drop everything just because someone shows up at his door, yet Lincoln spent hours greeting people at the whitehouse when he was president.Had Bush invited Sheehan in for a lemonade when she first showed up, before this became an event, would we be where we are right now?
I agree to a certain extent Bush does have himself to blame for some of this because he has never appeared to take seriously the sacrifices he has asked the military to endure. (Of course, I say that as someone who is not in the military. I would never presume to speak for a soldier.) And perhaps he could have defused this from the start. On the other hand, I suspect that there isn't much he can do to satisfy Cindy Sheehan.
In one sense, no, nothing will satisfy Cindy Sheehan because no one can bring back her baby. And, yes, he is her baby -- even at 26 -- just the same as when my grandmother insists on watching me walk down the sidewalk from her home after dusk until she can't see me anymore even when I remind her that I lived in NYC for 15 years and for five of those years had a job where I routinely left work around 2 or 3 in the morning.And, of course she does not speak for all members of all Gold Star Familles -- I'm not aware that she claimed that she did.Does she have any more right to the President's time than any other Gold Star Family member? No, of course not.So why so much focus on her in the press? Is it because MoveOn is now backing her? ...because she's being fed lines by the "Lefty" groups?I would suggest it's the exact opposite of that. MoveOn didn't send her down there...nor did Michael Moore. Her pain as the parent who lost her baby sent her there. The fact that she thought the war was wrong from the start, that she tried everything that she could do to prevent her baby from being killed in a war which she believed was so much bullshit from the start, does not lessen her grief. She knew it was wrong from the start, and yet, she still could not prevent her onw child from being caught up in it -- she could not save him from it.And saying that she is somehow cheapening her son's service is just repeating the lie of the Right that you cannot support the troops and be against this war.She has done something which MoveOn could not do. She did not create a crafty meme or slogan -- she told a story. A story which captured the attention of the American public that all the bumper stickers and T-shirts could not:I am a mother. I bore a son. He died in this war. This war which many now believe was a mistake from the start. I want an answer as to why he died in this war which was based on lies. A war which makes us less safe -- not more. I will take my little lawn chair and sit in the hot Texas sun until I get an answer. I will sit in my lawn chair and wait until the President (arguably the most important man in the world) tells my why my boy (the most important man in the world to me) had to die in this war.It's a very simple story that rings true to many. It's the story that the Bush Administration has the most to fear from. It is not talking heads, it is not Downing Street Memos that few have read. It is the coffins coming home that the Bush Administration has shielded the press -- and by extension -- the American public from seeing.It's a story that can survive and surpass the circus that has built up around it.
I need to add one more thought: You're acting as though the "other side" has had no say in any of this. As though the President has not met with Gold Star family members who approve of the war. As if anchors on Fox do not wear American flag pins to signify their approval of this Administration and its actions; as if Support Our Troops yellow ribbon magnets and decals have not only become ubiquitous, but synonymous in the media with support for the war in Iraq; as if Bush didn't use the troops as so many props during the election; as if there have not been families featured on local and network news who approve of their children serving in Iraq; as if the mainstream media actually really asked hard questions before we entered this war. You're acting as if Bush didn't ask everyone to show their support for the troops (BUT REALLY HIS WAR) by flying their flag on the Fourth of July -- as if we needed his direction and approval to fly it. Yet, one middle-aged woman sends so many into such a tizzy.That's the power of Cindy Sheehan's story.
I think a lot of people are investing more authority in her opinion than they would other anti-war protestors because she lost a son in the war, and I don't agree with that. This war has cost her something immeasurable, but the war is made neither wrong nor right as a result of her loss.
Would that be more right or wrong than the authority that they gave to George Bush, Condelizza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney who lied their asses off? Maybe it's time to listen to Mom.
Public opinion was already going against the war before Cindy Sheehan became news to the public in general. She has a compelling story. The media and the public like compelling stories. Her story is easy to comprehend. They public already is waking up to the fact that they were lied to -- but, no, the majority of them are not going to go read the Downing St. Memos. So what? What she's saying makes plain simple sense to them. Does it have to be a Cronkite? (As LBJ famously said, "If I lost Cronkite, I've lost the war.")Why does it matter to so much that it's a grieving mom that's waking up the public rather than someone else?
To put it more clearly:The public is paying attention to Cindy Sheehan because the public is now ready for her story.Do you really think she would have blown up in the press like this if she was doing it in August of 2003???The public no longer wants Bush serving a plastic turkey to the troops -- they are already turned or turning against that.They now WANT to rally behind a grieving mother.And you want to quibble over that?Would it have been better to have more people using their analytical processes better before the war started? Damn straight! But we couldn't even get the FOURTH ESTATE to do that.Such a small percentage of the public evben pays any attention to politics -- even on life and death matters. But they are now. They know something is wrong.We were not greeted with candy and flowers, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the mission was not accomplished, the war grows ever bloodier...You can't fool all of the people all of the time.They are ready for Cindy now.
MoveOn definitely created and guided Cindy Sheehan. How do I know this? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FREAKIN' EMAILS THEY'VE SENT ME AND MY STAFFERS OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS.Moveon finally got some traction not because Sheehan's story is now, mysteriously, more appealing to the public or the press.They did it the old fashioned way! They trotted her down to Texas, where they knew several hunderd White House and regional reporters would be camped out with nothing to do because, well, President Bush isn't doing anything.Add to that the traditional August relaxation from hard news coverage and you have, voila, something that resembles novelty! We'll call it news! Welcome to your weirdly public grieving process, Cindy!While you're at it, blame the Jews!Don't get me wrong. I like the fact that Moveon finally started understanding how to mobilize the press. But as I've said earlier, in no way is this good for our party. The more we devolve into a fluff-headed stew of meaningless protest and tug-on-the-heartstrings treacle, the worse off we'll be in the mid-term elections.It's time to get serious about foreign policy, the military, et al. Sheehan and her anti-Israel, anti-truth screed will not help us.
By the way, "fake name" seems somehow better than AnymousfortheConversation. The blog name remains the same, however.
Oh, yeah, and this is ONE CRACKING BLOG!
"MoveOn definitely created and guided Cindy Sheehan. How do I know this? BECAUSE OF ALL THE FREAKIN' EMAILS THEY'VE SENT ME AND MY STAFFERS OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS."Sheehan has been publicly criticizing Bush for OVER ONE YEAR -- did MoveOn retroactively "create" her? She seems to have been quite capable of speaking without them:June 24, 2004In a June 24, 2004, interview with the Vacaville Reporter published soon after the meeting, she expressed concerns about the president's justifications for war, as well as the way the war had been handled.October 7, 2004Cindy Sheehan Is Working To Bring Our Troops Home: "Mr. President. You have daughters. How would you feel if one of them was killed?" November 4, 2004An Open Letter to George W. Bush"While you're at it, blame the Jews!"Yes, because of course you cannot criticize the policies of the state of Israel without being an anti-Semite, just as you cannot criticize the policies of the United States without being anti-American.
Maybe it's time to listen to Mom.NO, it is't.Not when "Mom" is liar. The fact is Sheehan has meet with the President. So this whole media feeding frenzy is built on a obvious lie.Not when the rest of the family think that Mom is disgracing her son's memory.The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm)Not when hyping of this witch in a ditch is a creation of the MSM. Anybody remember James H. Smith? Clue: His son died in Somolia under Clinton. Smith refused to shake Clinton's hand at the White House, and even ripped Clinton a verbal "new one". Was there a month of media coverage about that? Did they reenact that in the Blackhawk Down movie?Hey, FN, look, no blog.
"Sheehan has been publicly criticizing Bush for OVER ONE YEAR -- did MoveOn retroactively "create" her? She seems to have been quite capable of speaking without them."Uhhhhh, no shit. I think that was my point. While Sheehan was spouting the same anti-semitic, moonbat idiocy many months ago to desecrate the memory of her son and grind her long-held political axe, it took the cultivation of her image by professionals to make all that magic come together.Let's call it, "The Branding of Cindy."Cindy Sheehan did not simply arrive, alone, at Camp Crawford, standing as the flip side of Old Mother Courage until W showed up.Hardly.About six months ago, she got involved with savvy political operatives hired by Moveon, and then retained her own professional publicist to get hooked into a number of influential intellectual streams, most especially Huffington's bunch.The emails and faxes began to fly. But nothing -- nothing -- beats the free ad buy you get when a mob of reporters and TV cameramen deplane in Crawford, Tx. with nothing to report... except this strange woman pitched by many publicists making a very public challenge to Bush to just sit down and talk.Mano a Momma.The problem for Moveon is that the more people hear about the mom and her politics, the less than 99 44/100 pure she seems. She didn't think the U.S. had a right to invade Afghanistan? She encouraged her son not only to avoid military service, but to desert before he went to Iraq? I'm going to assume, Maria, that you are being deliberately obtuse about Ms. Sheehan's hatred of Jews. Let me quote her exact, practiced words, which she has both written and spoken in public forums:"My first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel."Had she said, "My first born was murdered because this country has followed a nutty occupation policy similar to Israel's in Lebanon and Gaza," I might believe you.But when she mentions a "PNAC Neo-Con agenda," she is speaking in very loaded phrases. She is saying -- and I think you know this -- that a group of Jewish men and women at State, DoD and the WH are pushing the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq to serve their true masters, Israel.This is a hideous slur against Jewish Americans. Various types of this slur have been uttered by right-wing isolationists and leftie moonbats over the past century, most prominently by people such as Father Coughlin and Pat Buchanan, but also by Edward Said and Counterpunch.Org.Common to the trope is the notion that, in the words of Said, "(a)n immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals" who mean Arabs no goodwill.Sheehan just repeats the mantra, only this time behind the death mask of a son who obviously disagreed with his mother on these issues.It probably doesn't help her to have well-known Jew haters such as David Duke, Pat Buchanan and antiwar.com now hanging on her every word.I love protest. I think everyone should protest that which they dislike and want changed. But I tire of self-possessed moonbats who debase the memory of her ADULT son by trading on his good name to make a point.May I never do this to my children, even if they do something really annoying, like joining the GOP.By the way, JP, congratulations on the upcoming birth. Cracking blog for a cracking guy! Mazeltov!
Thank you very much. Very interesting that you would know about that...
If FN sayes "cracking" another dozen more times I will think he is channelling Wallace of Wallace&Grommit.
Her maternity status was outed in another Pittsburgh blog. It was an off-the-cuff remark, but I thought that even in cyberspace one should celebrate the upcoming birth of your child.The kid's going to be one helluva cracking journalist. Has the genes.So it's a most sincere mazeltov! It's time to be joyful!
On another note, I thought you might enjoy this essay in Washington Monthly, in re universities and their service to America.www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html
But when she mentions a "PNAC Neo-Con agenda," she is speaking in very loaded phrases. She is saying -- and I think you know this -- that a group of Jewish men and women at State, DoD and the WH are pushing the U.S. to invade and occupy Iraq to serve their true masters, Israel.I think I know that you pushing the Right's talking points now: That mentioning the Project for a New American Century/Neo-Con's is somehow equivalent to mentioning the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in terms of defaming Jews and that's BULL.Go to PNAC's Statement of Principles Page and look at the signers. Are there Jews there? Yes. But I don't believe that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, and Dan Quayle are Jews. Yet they are Neo-Cons and they are signers on that page.Is Paul Wolfowitz often mentioned as a Neo-Con: yes -- because he is one! And because he helped shaped Bush Administration policy with other PNAC members like Cheney and Rumsfeld that campaigned for war with Iraq. And, because he drafted, with Lewis Libby, the "defense policy guidance" report that was an early blueprint for the Bush's preemptive defense and interventionist foreign policies. What PNAC and Neo-Cons believe in is one thing: EMPIRE. If Israel happens to fit into their big plans somehow, it doesn't make those opposed to their plans anti-Semitic. It doesn't mean that anyone who mentions PNAC is somehow using "code words" signifying anti-Semitism.Man, you sure love guilt by association. Buchanan mentions PNAC so EVERYONE who mentions PNAC hates Jews. Michael Moore champions Sheehan so we now need to blame her for anything Moore has ever said or done.I hear Buchanan says he loves this country so I'll just assume that if you love the US you are a follower of his, OK?
Maria, I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse. What Ms. Sheehan said was a signal to anti-semite isolationists everywhere, no matter their leftie or rightie status, about exactly what she meant.That's why she was so precise, in both writing and speaking the words. You don't find it odd that her language almost mirrors the words of well-known anti-semites. I, for one, give her the respect of treating her words, in the context their uttered for the people she represents, for what they are.David Duke, for one, is nearly word-for-word with her on his website. And was before she said them.Don't become her apologist because, when you do, you apologize for the language of hate she embraces.This hate has a long, ugly history in this country. That's why when she says what she says, the way she says it, it carries meaning beyond your linking to some webpage. These words don't arrive in a vacuum. There's a context two centuries in the making, and it's now embraced by the moonbat left and the Jew-hating right. This is as true at Moveon and Counterpunch as it is in Gibson's snuff film.These aren't just right-wing talking points. Jewish academics, bloggers, columnists, theologians, et al, have been agog since her words hit the press. They know exactly what she's saying, even if you pretend she doesn't.In other forums, she has accused Bush of going to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Israel; because Hussein supported Abu Nidal, a terrorist who killed American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking; because he paid for suicide bombings in Israel. She doesn't talk so much about imperialism or oil (although she certainly would agree with you there). She's transfixed by Israel and the "neo-con" cabal in America that "supports" the Sharonist administration, a strategy she calls the "cancer of Pax Americana." Why doesn't she just blurt out, "Jews lied, my son died" and get it over with?Hell, she appears on stage with Eugene Bird of the Council for the National Interest! She's sat there while he blamed Israel and the "neo-cons" for the abuses at Abu Ghraid and never stopped him!Hell, even Chris Hitchens picked up on her tone immediately.You also might note that nothing in the PNAC's preamble is there even a MENTION OF ISRAEL. That had to be added, for a reason, by a Jew-blamer, which is Cindy Sheehan.Your point is that, well, some of Bush's friends aren't Jews. One could be arch about the contortions you're making to create a Sheehan she doesn't even want you to create, but so be it. Maybe you're right and all of her supporters in Texas -- such as Crawford Peach House and ANSWER -- are wrong.I doubt it. This is the current problem with the left's foreign policy (and by left, I claim myself as a member). It's been hijacked by the Michael Moores, Ramsey Clarks and the Counterpunches of the world. It must be wrestled back to reality by the Clintons, Liebermans and Bidens of the party or we're lost.I apologize ahead of time for Lieberman's religion, Marie. We know that's REALLY why he's such a strong supporter of an aggressive American counter-terrorism policy.Iraq isn't about "empire." That you say so and find Cindy Sheehan's heavily-phrased language so innocuous points only to what's gone wrong with Democratic planning.When a social historian writes the final book on why decent, loyal Americans who happened to be Jewish bolted from the Democratic party, s/he should footnote "Cindy Sheehan."
"Your point is that, well, some of Bush's friends aren't Jews."Who's being "intentionally obtuse"? My point is that numerous members of PNAC/Neo-cons are not Jews. Yet if someone on the Left says "PNAC" they get pounced on for being an anti-Semite. Jerry Bowyer did that to me before the war started. There used to be a call-in show on current events on WPXI or maybe PCNC after the 6:00 PM news. It was usually hosted by anchor David Johnson, but on this day it was hosted by Bob Bruce. Bowyer was a guest. The topic was the, then, upcoming war in Iraq. I spoke about Bush's dangerous and illegal preemptive war policy. At the end of my call I mentioned PNAC, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. I did not mention or allude to "Israel" or "Jews." When my call ended, Bruce turned to Bowyer and asked what is PNAC? Bowyer said, "It's something that people who are anti-Semitic bring up." "I apologize ahead of time for Lieberman's religion, Marie. We know that's REALLY why he's such a strong supporter of an aggressive American counter-terrorism policy."Don't know who "MariE" is -- or who you are for that matter -- you aren't Bowyer, are you? Because your "apology" smacks of his debate "style" as in now I'm an anti-Semite.Gee, is everyone who agrees with "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" anti-Semite? And, would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that called for us to let the job of capturing bin Laden in Tora Bora to the War Lords who bin Laden paid off?Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that had us pull out many of our troops in Afghanistan to put them into Iraq -- ensuring that the Taliban would resurface there?Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that by going into Iraq created, according to the CIA, a "training ground for terrorists"?Would that be the same "aggressive American counter-terrorism policy" that is right now creating a de facto Islamic theocracy in Iraq?
Maria,I don't think you're anti-semitic. I think you're likely somewhat young and you haven't been exposed to the language or context of Sheehan's words.These aren't simply GOP talking points about ol' Cindy. She is using her language very carefully, trafficking in words that have a long, ugly history in this country. She is associating with people who are far less circumspect about Jew hatred than she is, and aping their rhetoric for a purpose. You are surprised that when people hear you using similar language, they jump to a conclusion. Well, Maria, there's a reason they do that, and it's not to simply shut you up. It's because certain people use that highly specific, coded language to make points that would be unseemly to utter at other times. The longer you're around politics -- either right or left -- the more you'll hear it.Similarly, African-Americans are particularly well tuned to hearing similar gab about "welfare queens" and "entitlements." Yes, you can have a genuine policy dispute that invokes the issues without the language.Trust me when I say there are a great many lefties who can attack Israeli and American foreign policy very well indeed without resorting to that tired tripe about a cabal running American foreign policy. Pick up a copy of Ha'aretz sometime. Or the NY Times. Or Dissent.But when you mention PNAC and Israel in the same sentence, you are making a very specific charge, one that trades in the religious identities of the most prominent PNAC members. If you, like Sheehan, really believe the senior policymakers, many of whom are Jewish, prodded the White House to invade and occupy Iraq to protect Israel, then you might have some issues about bigotry to work out.If you believe the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan or Iraq for oil, or empire, under a pre-text of national security stemming from 9/11, then you're just wrong.For those keeping score at home, Jewish participation in the all-volunteer U.S. military is proportionately higher than their numbers in the general population.I'm sure they're not in uniform to protect Israel. They're there to protect America, which is more than Sheehan's moonbat foreign policy would ever do.And to deflate the chickenhawk argument right now, yes I did serve in uniform during wartime. Yes, I am Jewish. Yes, I am a Democrat of some standing. Yes, I'm returning to Iraq next month. And no, I don't typically support Sharonist policy. I'm not alone in this:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002446106_iraqson21.html
"I don't think you're anti-semitic. I think you're likely somewhat young and you haven't been exposed to the language or context of Sheehan's words."[snip]"Pick up a copy of Ha'aretz sometime. Or the NY Times. Or Dissent."I think you're definitely completely dismissive and condescending to those who disagree with you."You are surprised that when people hear you using similar language, they jump to a conclusion. Well, Maria, there's a reason they do that, and it's not to simply shut you up." I didn't say that code words do not exist, but when the mere mention of a group counts as using "similar language" you are doing what the Bush Administration does (very well) and shutting down conversation before it begins. PNAC is not a shadowy cabal -- their website and mission statements are there for anyone to view. Their prominent adherents include the current vice president, an ex VP, the Sec. of Defense and any number of men who have run for the office of presidents (all of who are Christians). To use them in an argument about why we invaded Iraq as I did before the war began when we were fed any number of lies (WMD's nuclear programs) to try to explain to people that the planned invasion was far from being in the meme of "everything changed after 9/11" because this group has advocated invading Iraq since it's inception is completely valid."If you believe the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan or Iraq for oil, or empire, under a pre-text of national security stemming from 9/11, then you're just wrong."I have not argued against our going to war with Afghanistan, I have argued that we screwed up the war in Afghanistan to go into Iraq -- a country which posed no threat to us.You're just wrong on your views on Iraq -- there, that apparently settles that.
Hey, FN, don't you get the feeling that your party has left you? Just look at how few national Democrats you can site that support the war in a staight forward honest manner. BTW, I would not group Clinton, and Biden with Leiberman, who I think is very honest, decent mench.Hey, Maria, you have PayPal? That way I can sent you a couple of quarter to buy a clue. The issue about PNAC is not that their member is not 100%, but that Sheehan thinks they are part of a Jewish cabal. Read Sheehan's letter to NightLine:Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by a George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy...not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. Seems to me to be a open and shut of loony far left ranting against Jewish conservatives by a truly hateful woman.
Well, launching this war was a mistake, so this is one Democrat who wishes that more of my party's leadership opposed the war when it mattered. What I am frustrated by is the Democrats' failure to develop a coherent national security strategy to counter the president's flawed vision.
JP, my perspective is summed up by the early link I provided:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002446106_iraqson21.html While remaining divided on preemptive combat in general, but not the Hussein regime in particular, I find greatest fault with W for the prosecution of the war.I can abide bad intelligence or a poor marketing job. I can't stomach the needless spoil of American youth and treasure by incompetents.I still believe Gore/Lieberman, had they won in 2000, would have invaded Iraq after 9/11. But I also think they would've done it right.I'm not sure my party in 2005 is the same one that won the popular vote in 2000. I fear for our prospects in 2008 unless we get serious, as you said, about developing a coherent national security strategy -- one that includes preserving a strong manufacturing base while casting off our addiction to cheap Middle Eastern crude.
Maria,I don't thinks it's dismissive to suggest that you might not appreciate the language Sheehan is employing. I will say, however, that if you agree with her suggestion, that prominent policy analysts, most of whom are Jewish, tricked the U.S. into invading and occupying Iraq to further the foreign policy goals of Israel, you might have some of your own issues to work out.I don't think you believe that. But if you do, well, you know.I certainly wouldn't want to limit debate. I can't imagine that the various think tanks (including many peacenik ones also staffed by a fair number of Jewish people) would hesitate to criticize PNAC because of some perceived ethnic cut.In fact, I know that's not true. "similar language"As I said before, had Sheehan simply cursed PNAC for advising the U.S. to get into an ill-advised war, I could probably live with that. But when she starts mentioning "Israel" and "PNAC" in the same sentence; and then standing with self-professed anti-semites on a platform attacking the war, the "neo-cons" and Israel; and making morally equivalent arguments about, say, how Israel has the bomb and "it's not fair" that "Syria and Iran don't," well, one might start drawing some conclusions.Personally, I wish Cindy Sheehan wasn't such a Jew-hating media cow. I wish ANSWER and Moveon and Counterpunch, et al, could effectively make policy points without resorting to coded anti-semitic language.Why? Because it hurts to hear it. And it really hurts to see fellow Americans who believe this isolationist "W" somehow changed his spots because a cabal of Jews changed his mind for him after 9/11. That sort of cheap conspiracy theorizing isn't good for the debate and it's death on democracy."because this group has advocated invading Iraq since it's inception is completely valid."By why single out THIS GROUP? They aren't the most powerful thinktank in DC? It's not like they've become Brookings or RAND overnight. And weren't there other groups far more likely to have pushed for war, like, say, CONGRESS????????I seem to recall a certain vote, by elected policymakers, about a certain war, with a majority of Democrats in support, and, well, why go on.Blame the Jews!"I have argued that we screwed up the war in Afghanistan to go into Iraq -- a country which posed no threat to us."Oh, I don't know. I've been shot at twice by Iraqis in my life, and going back for a third round. I've found the Baathist thugs and various Jihadist maniacs to be poison to American values and the safety and security of Iraq's neighbors.Nutty me. That I've actually analyzed the very weapons Hussein sought to build -- and most certainly would have continued to build once international sanctions ended -- might be something that keeps me awake at night while Michael Moore dreams of conspiracies.Or while Sheehan blames Jews, or Israel, or whomever, for the death of her son, who was many more times the American she'll never be.
"I will say, however, that if you agree with her suggestion, that prominent policy analysts, most of whom are Jewish, tricked the U.S. into invading and occupying Iraq to further the foreign policy goals of Israel, you might have some of your own issues to work out.I don't think you believe that. But if you do, well, you know."I never suggested that PNAC "tricked" anyone. Their position on US global domination is clear. Their position on Israel is only part of their strategy. Their main policy seems to be a preference for preemptive war. This policy has adherents at the top levels of the Bush Administration most of whom are Professional Christians TM. I don't suggest that any members of PNAC have some sort of dual loyalty to the US and Israel because I don't know that that is true and I have not been presented with any evidence that that is true. I do know that many prominent members of the Rapture Right crowd have long been fans of Sharonist polices -- not because they have any particular love for Jews in Israel -- but because it fits in with their view that Jews must be in the Holy Land in order to fulfill "End Time prophecy" and because they state this publicly. US support of Israel has come in all shapes and sizes for good or ill. """"similar language"""That was your phrase for why anyone who uttered the phrase "Project for a New American Century" should not be "surprised" to be labeled as an anti-Semite whether or not they said "Israel" in the same sentence."By why single out THIS GROUP? They aren't the most powerful thinktank in DC? It's not like they've become Brookings or RAND overnight."Because when you go to PNAC's web site you SEE the names of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer, and Dan Quayle signed on to their statements. You do not see that at Brookings or Rand. So either our leaders are only more than happy to be associated with it, or Brookings and Rand need to rethink their PR."Oh, I don't know. I've been shot at twice by Iraqis in my life, and going back for a third round. I've found the Baathist thugs and various Jihadist maniacs to be poison to American values and the safety and security of Iraq's neighbors."They were boxed in and we had weapons inspectors on the ground. And, oh, I don't know, but when a country is bombed and invaded, they do tend to shoot back. I know it's kinda nutty and hard to believe that it would work that way, but it does seem to. Any sensible person would expect to be greeted with candy and flowers.
"And weren't there other groups far more likely to have pushed for war, like, say, CONGRESS????????I seem to recall a certain vote, by elected policymakers, about a certain war, with a majority of Democrats in support, and, well, why go on.Blame the Jews!"Maybe because when Congress voted they didn't know that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." BUSHCO lied to Congress, lied to UN and lied to the American people about the reasons we went to war. The amendment Congress voted on was about WMDs -- the ones that were not there. Small point, I know. Another small point: Sheehan is asking Bush for an answer not "the Jews."
FakeName, you are coming perilously close to revealing your identity through the disclosure of these personal details.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As for Sheehan, the woman I call "the fat Jew-hating media cow," it's important to remember that her peeps at Code Pink Women for Peace have taken a sliver of their protest away from Crawford, Texas, to where it really belongs.The gates of Walter Reed hospital in DC. Yes, this group of patriots has determined that the best possible way to fight the war is to rub it in the faces of the most horribly wounded because, you know, they support the troops.www.crosswalk.com/news/1347570.htmlIt's vital to our democracy that moonbats show the near dying signs that read, "Maimed for Lies," and, "Enlist here and die for Halliburton."Even nuttier is the creepy righties who have come to counter-protest the protestors.I know this might come as a shock to civilians, but Walter Reed, much like Arlington National Cemetery, is considered akin to hallowed ground. If any group has any sense of decency, they will leave these poor men and women alone to heal, both physically and mentally, from the war.Had Sheehan's son been seriously wounded instead of killed, and had he ended up at Walter Reed to rehab, I wonder if his fat Jew-hating media cow of a mother would have been so nonplussed by a bunch of screaming malcontents barking outside the ward's windows on visitor's Friday.I'm awaiting POG's next march -- from CMU to the recruiting station to Temple Sinai because, well, you know. PNAC and those kinds of people.
Let's keep the name-calling to a minimum, please.
FakeName, you are free to re-post your previous comment without the gratitious swipe at Sheehan.
Yes, Sheehan can trash Jews, but far be it from me to suggest that she might be dishonoring the memory of her son.She arrogates to herself the mantle of all-suffering mother, but can't bear the scrutiny that affixes to the title? She's a public figure now, and should be held to the standards of them, and that includes ridicule.I'll settle up now.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
I'm a Pittsburgher. I'm a PR guy. These opinions are solely my own. What else do you need to know?
View my complete profile
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]