_


  • Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« Cindy Sheehan | Main | Latest Links »

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

Comments

Josh Legere

One thing I like about Cindy is that her some actually died. She has some experience. I see a good degree of sincerity. That is more than I can say for most that oppose the war.

I can't say I agree with the theatre. Political theatre has not worked for 30 years. It might makes sense for her to go to theripy instead of her current course of action.

reg

Your friend Harold Myerson had a similiar insight not long ago, observing that anti-war sentiment would probably be better served by the lack of a militant, left-wing antiwar movement making a bunch of noise. That said, my own "three degrees of seperation" from Cindy Sheehan was based on my sister, one of the last three "moderate Republicans" on the planet, commenting approvingly on Sheehan's protest and telling me of a fellow resident of Springfield MO, a woman who happens to be a veteran, who's headed down to join Sheehan's protest. While I can go all Salt of The Earth about my sister's fellow denizen of The Ozarks joining the Crawford Camp - and it makes for good anecdote - I think there's something a bit weird - even elitist in a "counter" creepy way - about suggesting that somebody from LA who wears makeup and owns an iBook should refrain from protesting the war by standing at Ms. Sheehan's side. Who's going to make fun of her ? Peggy-fucking-Noonan in The Wall Street Journal ???

reg

More fashion-challenged women from obscure burgs on their way to Crawford to help deflect attention from HiTech Coastal Hotties with MoveOn connections...

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/12398783.htm

A-A A (Channeling Rockford)

Blah blah blah NUKES!!!! blah blah blah blah THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T CARE!!! blah blah blah TRAITORS!!! blal blah blah DAVID DUKE!!! blah blah blah blah JOOOOOS!!!

(too tired to come up with a better pastiche, right now)

Abbas-Ali Abadani

I was going to write something to rebuke all the slime and smears being hurled her way, but so many people have done such a better job that I thought I'd just link to them, or quote from them, instead.

"Smearing Cindy Sheehan" - Farhad Manjoo
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/salon7.html
One of "them" interviews a fellow America-hating, anti-Semitic, paranoid conspiracy theorist.


"In Defense of Cindy Sheehan" - Justin Raimondo
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6975
A thorough, well-deserved thrashing of the Wall Street Journal, Powerline, Drudge, Hitchens and all the usual suspects who've lined up to attack her and her defenders. Absolutely a must read.


"Sheehan: It's About PNAC and the Neocons" - Kurt Nimmo
http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/?p=906
Truth no longer a viable defense.
Partially reposted below

* * * * * *

In response to a comment posted on this blog — claiming I am an anti-Semitic conspiracy nut who blames everything on the poor Jews — allow me to quote Cindy Sheehan: "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 George [W.] 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. That hasn't changed since America invaded and occupied Iraq…in fact it has gotten worse."

Is Cindy Sheehan a Nazi-loving anti-Semite who wants to shove Jews in crematoria ovens — or is she simply telling the truth (and a well-documented truth, albeit consistently ignored by the corporate media)? Naturally, it didn't take long for the far right-wing apologists to scream "Sheehan's a Jew-hating anti-Semite" from the rooftops — or from the depths of the blogosphere, anyway (see this knee-jerk entry at Israpundit). [ http://tinyurl.com/dlq4z ]

According to the concentration camp apologist Michelle Malkin, [ http://tinyurl.com/7vo57 ] Sheehan is a dupe for "the far Left and the MSM" (translation: the "MSM," or mainstream media, read corporate media, reported this story, so they are complicit in the treasonous plot to bring the troops home). As Ms. Malkin sees it, the "Cindy Sheehan juggernaut has resulted in an uptick in profanity-laced moonbat hate mail from Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers incapable of rational debate." In other words, arguing that the Iraq invasion and occupation is an untenable disaster indicates one is "incapable of rational debate" (as defined by Malkin and the neocons) and opposition to such lunacy as killing 140,000 (give or take 10 or 20 thousand) innocent Iraqis predicated on a stinking passel of lies is a symptom of the "Bush Derangement Syndrome." However, it would appear Malkin suffers from a mental illness of her own — not uncommon in Bushzarro world — because she believes the "MSM" is infiltrated with America-hating leftists (for instance, the American-hating folks at General Electric, who manufacture jet engines for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other military aircraft makers, and also own and control NBC, CNBC, Telemundo, and msnbc.com). [ http://tinyurl.com/8gvvk ]

But anyway, the point here is that you cannot avoid reality — even from the murky depths of Bushzarro world where the Michelle Malkin apologists for mass murder and forever-war reside. I keep citing the following news article as a primary example of how indeed the invasion and occupation of Iraq is in Israel's interest (War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser) [ http://tinyurl.com/5a7qg ] but this fact is studiously ignored. It is also well-established that the invasion of Iraq was pushed by the likes of neocon "think tanks" such as PNAC, as Sheehan notes, and also the American Enterprise Institute, Middle East Media Research Institute, Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Center for Security Policy, and others less influential. Again, this is not some Elders of Zion conspiracy theory but established fact (for more detail, see Jason Vest, The Men From JINSA and CSP). [ http://tinyurl.com/5sbj ]

On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the Machiavellian neocon Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime," in other words killing even more Iraqis than they had killed up to that point (around a million, half of them children, through medieval sanctions). "Among the letter's signers were the following current Bush administration officials," notes Stephen J. Sniegoski. [ http://tinyurl.com/aqle3 ] "Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Wolfowitz (Defense Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense Department), Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense). In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network and already demanding war with Iraq…. Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney (Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-N.Y.)." Such facts are easily obtained and hardly constitute a crack-brained conspiracy theory, as some allege. Fact of the matter is pro-Zionist neocons engineered the invasion of Iraq and Cindy Sheehan is absolutely correct (and allow me to add): her son died for a gaggle of racist and hateful chickenhawk Likudnik-lovers bent on "reshaping" the Muslim Middle East (i.e., destroying Islamic societies and culture).

Of course, for the neocons — ensconced in the Bush administration and their right-wing funded foundations, or criminal organizations — the invasion and occupation of Iraq is only the beginning. If they have their way more Casey Sheehans will be slaughtered (and thousands, possibly millions, of Muslims). Just so we understand where the Straussian neocon Machiavellian clash of civilizations crowd stands, consider the following, penned by the dynamic duo of all-war-all-the-time, Robert Kagan and William Kristol, [ http://tinyurl.com/86fuf ] in 2001:

"When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared with what looms over the horizon — a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle…. But this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid."

Abbas-Ali Abadani

The Chris Nolan piece... is what it is.

But that Joan Walsh piece was wonderful and I appreciate Joe Scott's "just the facts" approach.

miriam

I have a son in the Army in Iraq. There is a vigil tonight in support of Sheehan in the town where I live. I will probably attend, although with a lot of misgivings. I want to attend because I think it is important for family members of soldiers to speak out about the war, because I think that the country needs to know that many of us are furious that our loved ones have been put in harm's way for a war where there has been so much miscalculation and incompetence on the part of the government.I have misgivings because of some of the things that Sheehan has said, such as "Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel". For one thing, I do not agree with that statement, in spite of what Mr. Abadani has written. And second, and much more important, Sheehan and her supporters will totally alienate that large middle ground of family members of military personnel, who are appalled at the mistakes made in this war, but who are equally appalled by Michael Moore, Justin Raimondo, Naomi Klein etc etc.

miriam

I have a son in the Army in Iraq. There is a vigil tonight in support of Sheehan in the town where I live. I will probably attend, although with a lot of misgivings. I want to attend because I think it is important for family members of soldiers to speak out about the war, because I think that the country needs to know that many of us are furious that our loved ones have been put in harm's way for a war where there has been so much miscalculation and incompetence on the part of the government.I have misgivings because of some of the things that Sheehan has said, such as "Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel". For one thing, I do not agree with that statement, in spite of what Mr. Abadani has written. And second, and much more important, Sheehan and her supporters will totally alienate that large middle ground of family members of military personnel, who are appalled at the mistakes made in this war, but who are equally appalled by Michael Moore, Justin Raimondo, Naomi Klein etc etc.

Abbas-Ali Abadani

reg: "Your friend Harold Myerson had a similiar insight not long ago, observing that anti-war sentiment would probably be better served by the lack of a militant, left-wing antiwar movement making a bunch of noise."

Speaking of Harold Meyerson, have you taken a look at the September issue of American Prospect yet?

He's got the cover story this month -- a piece about pro-war pundits and their complicity with the administration and its policies. I just got it in the mail yesterday, haven't had a chance to read it yet, but the cover is hilarious.

Beneath an illustration of Tom Friedman, Bill Kristol, Hitch, and Krauthammer, in big bold letters, it says:

"SHUT UP, ALREADY!
The shameless dishonesty of the war pundits"

And then there's a little bubble quote from each of these gentlemen next to their respective figures:

Friedman: "Give war a chance!"

Kristol: "Two, three, many Iraqs!"

Hitch: "Trotsky would love this war!

Krauthammer: "On to Syria! Iran! France!"


The title of the piece is "Their War, Too"

Right below the title, above Meyerson's byline, it says: "Are mere pundits responsible when an administration's policy goes wrong? When their sophistic arguments helped sell and sustain it, very."

The illustration is reproduced on the inside with different quotes:

Friedman: "Bush Lied -- and I don't care!"

Kristol: "Abu Ghraib was nothing!"

Hitch: "I'm on the side of history!"

Krauthammer: "Don't go wobbly!"


Hitch's "I'm on the side of history!" had me rolling. Especially since it's one of the favorite pronouncements of the "Decent Left".

Here's the cover

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?name=Current+Issue&section=root

And here's Meyerson's piece in its entirety

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10113

I'm off to read it right now.

"Political theatre has not worked for 30 years."

Then why does the right comment on it? act defensive? fear it?

 steve

"Sheehan and her supporters will totally alienate that large middle ground of family members of military personnel, who are appalled at the mistakes made in this war, but who are equally appalled by Michael Moore, Justin Raimondo, Naomi Klein etc etc."

I doubt it, her supporters are basically liberals. Moveon.org is a liberal group, Moore is a liberal, Raimondo is a libertarian, and Klein a social democrat who only attract the bitter ire of the pro-war factions that are upset when she does an expose of privatization's debilitating impact on Iraqi sovereignty. The fact is aside from Moore, most Americans don't know these folks *and* many Americans are not swayed by the often silly demonization of Moore. Too many have gone and enjoyed his movies to buy into the media's attempt to turn him into a public deviant.
Hopefully when you go to the protest you'll see that the fear of anti-war protestors as irrational and 'extreme' is fueled by media and prowar propaganda more than reality.

 steve

I would note, btw, that the impact of a *veteran* and relative of the prowar guy who shot his gun in the air to intimidate the Sheehan protest supporters giving his land to Sheehan to use so she could safely and more effectively carry on the vigil will be very positive. It will be hard to carry on the attacks against her for creating 'disorder' in Crawford when she's doing a vigil on a veteran's land! Watch for Oreilly et al to attack him next!

Jay Byrd

> And second, and much more important, Sheehan and her supporters will totally alienate that large middle ground of family members of military personnel, who are appalled at the mistakes made in this war, but who are equally appalled by Michael Moore, Justin Raimondo, Naomi Klein etc etc.

That etc etc seems to cover a lot of ground. Good luck creating an anti-war movement by excluding those who opposed the war in the first place; you're left, for the most part, with the DLC-aligned elements of the Democratic party. People need to decide whether they would rather demonize Michael Moore and Naomi Klein or stand up to the Bush administration.

 steve

When Bill Oreilly was trying desparately to smear Sheehan by having on another military mom of dead soldier [he was mistaken, she was antiwar], he tried to scare her into condemning Michael Moore's web support of Sheehan. The mom, appearing 20 times more sincere than Oreilly, responded, "well Moore hasn't killed thousands of soldiers'...That's not an exact quote, but close to it. And that is a growing problem for the media, too many military moms are going to Crawford or showing support at vigils. Tonight's Anderson Cooper is doing a program tonight on "Does Sheehan represent all military moms?". Kinda pathetic, whoever said she did anyhow?
Command Central Network does it again!

Jay Byrd

"Does Sheehan represent all military moms?"

How about "Does George Bush represent all Americans?"

reg

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/10.html

Scroll down a bit to see the Mom & Bull O'Reilly...

Jay Byrd

Ever seen Outfoxed and O'Reilly's treatment of Jeremy Glick? Bill O'Reilly is pure unmitigated evil.

 steve

Uh-oh, more people the prowaristas need to smear?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/17/uinquiry.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/08/17/ixportaltop.html

Soldiers' families launch bid for Iraq war inquiry
(Filed: 17/08/2005)

The families of 17 soldiers killed during the Iraq war and its aftermath have launched a legal bid to secure an independent inquiry into the legality of the conflict.


Reg Keys and Rose Gentle outside the High Court today
Two of the bereaved parents, Reg Keys and Rose Gentle, attended the High Court for the lodging of papers in the case.

Mr Keys, who is the father of Tom Keys who was killed in Al Majar, near Basra, on June 24, 2003, while serving with the Royal Military Police, said they would not be at court today "if weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq".

He read out a list of 10 of the 17 soldiers who lost their lives.

"We most strongly feel our sons were sent into a conflict not backed by international law or the United Nations," Mr Keys said.

"Our boys were fully prepared to lay their lives down to defend their country.

"They were sent to war on a falsehood, against a background of propaganda of weapons of mass destruction."

Rose Gentle, from Pollok, Glasgow, whose 19-year-old son Gordon, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra on June 28, 2004, said her son was sent to Iraq "on a pack of lies".

Marc cooper

=========== PLEASE LIMIT COMMENTS TO THREE PER THREAD ======

miriam

Steve said "Hopefully when you go to the protest you'll see that the fear of anti-war protestors as irrational and 'extreme' is fueled by media and prowar propaganda more than reality."

I feel incredibly irritated when my views are dismissed as being based on nothing more than media and pro-war propaganda. Maybe I have GOOD REASONS for disliking Moore et al. Maybe there is a failure of imagination on your part why anyone could possibly dislike Moore. So listen up: Moore et al turn me off in equal measure as Bush and most Republicans. And I think it is a sad day for this country that so many people are so enthusiastic about Moore. I see Moore and Sean Hannity as equal dangers to this country. They both traffic in half-truths and smears.

 steve

I disagree, there is no comparison between Moore and Hannity. One can disagree with Moore on any number of levels [I certainly didn't agree with all of his analysis in F911 for example] and still rationally recognise that the level of misinformation from Hannity is a 10 versus Moore's 1. One could even agree with Marc's criticisms of Moore and still see that.
I'm with Roger Ebert on the Moore question frankly, the comparison of him to a Hannity is utterly baseless.

 steve

Since I'm not Jim Rockford, I know that I'm not allowed to go over 3 posts, my apologies.

Marc Cooper

Enough steve. Be quiet now.

Ahmed

Recently Christopher Hithens made the following comments in an interview

"In the case of the Palestinians, it is generally true that United States political culture doesn’t care about the Palestinians. We are taught to think of them as an inconvenient people who are in the way of Israel and a regional settlement. They are people about whom something should be done or, more condescendingly, for whom something should be provided.

I've spent three decades writing about the Palestinians and publishing a book with Edward Said [leading Palestinian intellectual and critic of Israel] about it. All political factions in this country have been lousy on this issue, but none lousier than the Democratic party. The Democrat party truly is what some people crudely say: a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Israeli lobby."

In spite of the fact that Hitchens is postering a bit here in the sense that his criticams is purely aimed at democrats and not the equally guilty repubs and neocons, I wholly agree with him and am heartened to hear him still defend the palestinian plight. That said, all the postering sometimes makes me dizzy. i was moved and encouraged by the fact that sheehan not only criticized the war in iraq but also called for a complete end to the israeli occupation. To paraphrase Hitch, in a political culture where pals are invisible than you would at least think, that Hitchens would be pleased by this too. what gives here

Greg Dewar

I think the whole thing is a bit bizarre. I mean, is the President so weak that a short private meeting with an opponent of some of his policies would morally and physically cripple him from doing his job?

This whole thing woulda gone away in about 20 minutes and Bush would have looked a lot stronger.

Instead he let the attack dogs out, and now we have the spectacle. She's just one person. What, one person is that strong enough to break the back of our military operations and commander in chief? Please. If that really is the case well that is scary.

Now there's no backing down. It's damn anyone who dares ask questions. Oh well, at least the lefties will have their Schiavo moment now. Woo fucking hoo.

The comments to this entry are closed.