this is the thread about Cindy Sheehan and her anti-war vigil

apparently her husband's family are going after her...

the best thing I've read about this is Arthur Silber's moving essay, which quotes Kipling, Grantland Rice, and Edna St. Vincent Millay, and really goes after the "dissent == treason" line.

http://www.guitarchina.com/billy/pic/b0015.jpg

However, I thought it was just a local story because she's from the Bay Area but it has definitely snowballed into a Norma Ray type deal... Good for her.

x-post

i wish there were more people out there actively fighting this, instead of just whining about it.
(as i sit here in my house drinking wine and doing nothing....)

Earlier this evening...

A group of about 50 pro-Bush demonstrators from the Metroplex armed with various sizes of American flags, as well as banners and posters, arrived directly across from Camp Casey on county right-of-way around 6:30 p.m. Radio personality Mike Gallagher, who organized the event, led the group in patriotic songs, a prayer, pro-Bush rhetoric, and thankfulness that they could openly express their beliefs in America. At one point they chanted "We don't care, we don't care."

funny that...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101837_2.html

...Think about the limitless, unending pain that comes from knowing that your son died for no good reason at all—that he is dead only because your president and his advisors would have their war, regardless of the facts, and that they would make other people, but never themselves or those they love so desperately, bear all its unbearable costs.

Cindy Sheehan has voluntarily placed herself directly in the center of the major political and cultural battle of our time. She knew the nature of the opposition and the attacks she would face. But that does make those attacks legitimate—or decent...

and

...With regard to poetry that particularly speaks to Cindy Sheehan’s situation, I should have included this justly famous and very brief poem from Rudyard Kipling. As I noted in my earlier post about World War I literature, Kipling had been the preeminent poet on behalf of the British Empire. It was the death of his only son in World War I that changed his perspective so profoundly:

Common Form

If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied...

But she undermines her authority by associating with the Moore crowd, who are about as intellectually indefensible as the Podheretz claque. I mean, for Sheehan to posit - as many of the Air America crowd have already, repeatedly - that Bush and his team should send their sons and daughters to Iraq is subscribing to the hoariest canard of all.

*bows* I think you are overreading my reactions here. It was Podhoretz who used the 'moral authority' line and you're adding the 'indisputable' part, and I'm more intrigued by the possibility than necessarily convinced they're 'at a loss.'

you give them a lot more credibility than I would have, Ned

Folks, I track hoohah on the right because *they're supporting/members of the party/organization in charge of the narrowly-winning-elections government* -- credibility matters less than how they're talking about themselves and how their angst is manifesting and what that means. People on the left complain a lot, Rove goes "Boo fucking hoo." People on the right start complaining more, Rove gets worried. If he ends up losing the electoral base over time due to how things go, the knives come out -- and THAT will be political theater.

How has this been crazy, though? It hasn't turned violent (and hopefully won't). The rhetoric, from what I can tell, has been relatively subdued, at least compared to righty commentators' reactions to her. There haven't been any embarrassing musical performances or puppets or anything, either, which would surely feed the "those damn hippies" contingent. So far so good, I'd say. As it gets bigger, well, I hope the original spirit remains intact.

George Bush doesn't want to meet with her, therefore he is not supporting the troops!

Why does the President hate America?

This is the closing quote from that WaPo analysis linked above: "The Bush administration has lost control of its public affairs management of this issue," said Christopher F. Gelpi, a Duke University scholar whose analyses of wartime public opinion have been studied in the White House. "They were so focused on this through 2004. . . . I don't know why they've slipped."

I hate comments like this that somehow imply that clueless incompetence is a surprise from this administration. These guys have fucked up one thing after another since coming into office, and every time, there's always this thing of how surprising it is coming from an administration with such a reputation for focus and efficiency and running a tight ship. They might be focused and efficient but they are also roaringly incapable of decent governance, and have been from Day One. But somehow it's important to preserve that narrative (Bushies as tough-minded CEOs in contrast to loose and sloppy grad-student Clintonites), so the fact that the Bush administration is by any available measure less competent and more prone to outright lying and black-is-white Humpty-Dumptyisms than any administration in recent memory gets instead presented as a series of aberrational screw-ups.

Which is all leaving aside the sane response to the Duke guy's rhetorical query, which is that they've "lost control of its public affairs management" because they "lost control" of Iraq a long time ago. Framing it as a "public affairs management" problem is somewhat missing the point.

-- But she undermines her authority by associating with the Moore crowd, who are about as intellectually indefensible as the Podheretz claque.

Wait, who are the "Moore crowd"? I hear people throw this around a lot, mostly conservatives sneering about the "Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party," as if just saying Moore's name was enough to discredit some imaginary mass of people. I don't get it. Michael Moore's not perfect and neither are his movies, but Fahrenheit 9/11 had a lot of good, gutsy stuff in it and he showed some faces and amplified some voices otherwise missing (like the black high school kids in Flint, and the grieving mother who kind of prefigured Cindy Sheehan). And Moore also knows a thing or two about populism -- that Sheehan seems to know too -- that the Democratic Party could stand to learn. I won't go to the mat for Moore on every detail of his movies or books, but he's a punching bag for the right because he scares them (as he should -- dude's sold a lot of books and movie tickets) and offends their sense of propriety, and I hate to see the left joining in.

As for Cindy Sheehan, from the little I've actually seen of her I think she's handling all of this with pretty remarkable grace. It also shows the idiocy of the Bush people. Even leaving aside the cretinism of going to a fundraiser or for a mountain-biking photo op while a grieving mother's at your gate, it would have made just plain old cynical political sense to meet with her, listen to her grievances for a few minutes, express sorrow for her loss and appreciation for her dedication, say "We have some differences of opinion, but we both want the same thing, which is a safer world" ... and then go to the fundraiser.

actually, i think the standard usage of this is the standard Admin defense; change the subject & attack all critics. Moore's an outspoken guy and thus a big target for these guys. Sometimes a false equivalence is attempted; defending fuckheads like Hannity or Coulter by pointing at Moore and saying "Seee! SEEE?! The Radical Left does this outlandish talk too!"

this is one of the most otm posts i seen on ILE political threads lately

But I won't get into that here.

Getting back to Sheehan, I haven't decided what I think of her yet. I simply wish she'd think about the illogic of her positions. Oil, my ass. It may yet urge in 20 years thanks to the Freedom of INformation Act that the Bush administration was really only interested in Iraq's oil and, given past U.S. perfidy, it wouldn't surprise me; but to suggest it NOW without evidence is underestimating the genuine missionary zeal of Wolfowitz, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, and the Heritage Foundation Crowd.

*his regard for The People

*It may yet emerge

Crawford, Texas man admits firing shotgun

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - At least one of President Bush's
neighbors in Crawford, Texas, seems to be getting fed up with a
growing anti-war protest.
As dozens of demonstrators gathered on the road leading to the
president's ranch, a shot was fired into the air.
Deputies rushed to the home of Larry Mattlage, who admitted
firing his shotgun, but he says it was to prepare for dove-hunting
season. When asked if he had another motive, he said, "Figure it
out for yourself."
Mattlage says he wasn't threatening anyone, adding, "This is
Texas."
The anti-war vigil began earlier this month. It was started by
Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in action in Iraq. She says she
plans to stay outside the Bush ranch for three more weeks.

It doesn't matter. They planned the war. But, yes, the number of intentional mixed signals the administration's sending suggests that a gradual and then general pullout will happen in or around U.S. midterm elections.

Will the real Cindy Sheehan please stand up?

I'm seriously thinking that if that is the plan, it would be well before, like next summer at the latest. But as you say, 'intentional mixed signals' -- though I rather doubt that there's any actual strategy at work, more like a 'throw at the wall and see what sticks' approach.

god forbid that she change her mind about anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/15/bush.neighbor/index.html

I would like to think this is true, but am starting to think the number is more like 60-65%.

(an anecdote: a client of mine was an avid dove hunter. once, whilst eating lunch with him, he regaled me the time he was a boy and found his parents KKK costumes in the closet. He wasn't embarassed about this, and told me in what might be described as exploratorally boastful. I then asked him if he was horrified, and he said no. He said, "Some things never change." This guy was VP of marketing at a large ($500M/year) enterprise.)

food and sport.

"dove" == "anti-war protester"

perhaps she learned her technique from observing those above her.

Uh, what?

As for Alfred on Moore, I think dismissing Moore as mendacious and shrill is reductive and unfair, and it overlooks the very good work he's done (which tends to coexist with his sloppier and less defensible work, but such is life), and I find it interesting that Moore seems to resonate more with the populist center than establishment liberals (who fell all over themselves to discredit him even as Fahrenheit 9/11 was avidly bootlegged by soldiers in Iraq). But whatever. Moore is not the issue here, any more than whether Cindy Sheehan has ever contradicted herself or shared the podium with genuine left-wing nutjobs. Sheehan is right on the things that count the most (and so is Moore, for that matter); I don't demand 100 percent ideological consistency from anyone, and in fact distrust it. If people want to argue with Sheehan, they need to confront her basic questions and accusations head on, not root around in Lexis-Nexis looking for gotcha quotes.

So do I, but I do demand factual consistency, especially if someone is accusing the adminstration of lying. This is my problem with Moore.

That's ridiculous. For one thing, I don't even know if Americans have a plurality in "ILX" as a whole. So in that case it might be more like 25% of ILX voted for Kerry. If we look at who was actually posting on this board at the time, I don't think there was a single one who would have voted for Dubya, not even Don.

Unless the makeup of the american population of ILX has changed radically in the last 10 months, you're way, way off the mark. Like delusionally off the mark.

This would be an outstanding new standard for discourse, on the Internets and Real Life. And as for Sheehan, maybe if she wasn't aligning herself with Moore, the Crawford Peace House, and Air America. Those alliances taint her cause in the eyes of those who might otherwise be open to her ploy; it's pretty easy to cast her as a tool.

The president has already met with her personally, a year ago. She had problems with the Administration's policy then yet her take-away quote was reasonably mitigated last summer. Now that she's changed her mind, it's suddenly not useful to consider her previous actions? Since when is that journalism? Sure, the New York Times may not consider it relevant to report her previous published comments despite the fact that they appear conclusively contradictory but that's not what I learned in journalism school.

And as for the dove hunting guy I had as a client got fired.

And it's happened already. Check Bill O'Reilly's website. He writes about her using passive-voice verbs as if manipulations were BEING DONE to her.

Yeah, if you're the kind of person who thinks there's automatically something horrible about Moore, the Crawford Peace House and Air America. I don't, and I don't think just saying their names is enough to discredit them, no matter how hard you sneer when you say it. Plus, it seems to me she's "aligning" herself with pretty much anyone who thinks Bush lied about Iraq and has waged a dishonest and incompetent war. But I guess it's easier to attack her fellow travelers ("They smell bad! They have silly signs! Dumb hippies!") than defend the administration or its policies.

hang on; we've reached the point when ANYBODY who says anything contrary to whatever the Party line of the day is immediately attacked. A big reason she's getting so much heat now is b/c some folks realized that she wasn't going away so easily, so they had to step up the efforts.

It's the same shit over and over and over again; change the subject, never address any of their criticisms, and do whatever possible to attack and discredit them: Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and on and on for the last 4 years and for at least 3.5 more. Their apparatchiks even attacked George Voinovich when he wouldn't completly toe the Party line.

nowadays, I don't think they give a shit about it anymore, or deliberately refuse acknowledging the reality of the situation as it might interfere or distract from enacting neo-con policy.

I think that both America and Israel are very reluctant to go to war, but that when either does, considering their abilities, they run the most humane conflicts the world has seen in war.

I think it's at least possible Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

I think there's no such thing as Cultural-Imperialism unless people are forced at gunpoint to adopt another culture.

I think that when the government subsidizes something, they are encouraging that thing, and that that includes single motherhood, split families, under-employment and poverty.

I think that the human mind is very good at seeking-out patterns, and that there is no future-history built into the Pyramids of Egypt and that Nostradamus couldn't have predicted the next day's weather, let alone prophesied the future.

Now this makes sense.

this is just so hilariously wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.... maybe with the fact that the US has been in a continual state of war for most of the 20th century with one nation or another...? Or the fact that the US is the only country to have used the most destructive, genocidal weapon on the face of the earth...?

And yet these are the some people that some of us appear to be relying on to deliver The All-Too-Shocking Truth About Cindy Sheehan.

x-post

And also, not to turn this completely into a Michael Moore thread, but I think Moore reaches well beyond the so-called choir (just as Cindy Sheehan does). A lot of the "choir" of anti-Bush establishment liberals (Richard Cohen and Ellen Goodman come to mind) were professionally appalled by Moore and at great pains to distance themselves, in the way that establishment types of any stripe always get nervous around populist rabble-rousers. They might agree with some of what he has to say, but they really wish he weren't quite so fat and whiskery and, well, unsophisticated. Meanwhile, from what I've read, Fahrenheit 9/11 was popular with a sizable subset of soldiers in Iraq, and it played well in a lot of podunk towns too. That's because Moore is a populist, and speaks populist language, and shows actual concern for people and points of view that are largely excluded from most media reports (or, if they're included, have to be smoothed and soothed by some 60 Minutes guy in a tie with a patrician voice). I certainly don't agree with him about everything and I can enumerate his flaws, but shit, he's just one guy with a megaphone and he's got some real talent for using it. And but I think a lot of the criticisms of him on the left arise from a kind of knee-jerk discomfort with noisy activism.

But noisy activism has its place. Cindy Sheehan has put her questions and accusations about Iraq on the front page in a way that, say, John Kerry and even Howard Dean have largely failed to do -- just as Michael Moore did a year ago. I'm not embarrassed to have these people out there raising questions, and the level of shit they get is proportionate to the level of concern and discomfort they elicit on the other side, so good for them.

IOW, it appears to me that Alfred Soto, like so many of us, would rather bitch and moan and fault-find than do any useful political work. If I am wrong, and Mr. Soto does his share of canvassing, phone-banking, fund-raising or (heavens!) has actually filled public office, then I can't help but wonder how he stood up to the horrid taint of it all.

ding ding ding.

I can't remember who wrote it, but somebody said that the Preznit's advisors deliberately don't tell him everything just so's they don't have a repeat of LBJ staying up late at night in the Situation Room, awaiting that day's casaulty reports. When Bill Moyers(LBJ's press secretary) was on Fresh Air a while ago, he talked about LBJ regularly taking his daughter with him and going down to the local cathedral after 2am for solace.

....No one has ever maintained that Cindy Sheehan’s views are entitled to a “free pass.” But it is not her views that are being attacked: it is Cindy Sheehan as a person....

I vote, I stay informed, and I write. To suggest that I might need some political experience before I write about politics is as silly as arguing that a music critic isn't qualified to write about music unless he's a musician himself.

Plus, I fail to see how criticizing Moore (or anyone, for that matter) turns me into a member of the Lofty Eminents Club. You'll have to explain that one.

On the other hand, I DO raise my pinky when I drink coffee.

seriously. i'm in awe of how accurate much of his writing is. He brings up such great points here and here, both about the work of Alice Miller and the lack of ability in some people to question authority figures.

It also matches up completely with what Lakoff has written about Modern Conservatism being "Submission to Parental Figures By Any Means Necessary."

we've reached the point when ANYBODY who says anything contrary to whatever the Party line of the day is immediately attacked.

Yep, and it pretty much works from both sides of the aisle. The methods are more refined (and possible more effective and/or polarizing) because of the immediacy of the Internets, but overall this point to which you refer to doesn't strike me as much different as it was in the late 80s. The vengeful sentiments behind the attacking are exactly similar. The politics of personal destruction, attacking the messenger, etc. are acceptable means to frame any issue.

It seems logical that if Cindy Sheehan posts on Michael Moore's website, people may infer some sort of affiliation.

Also, taints taste good. I thought everyone knew that.

August 22nd, 2005?

Isn't that a week from today?

really? there was really as much of a "he who questions is therefore a traitor" emphasis 16 years ago?

But Don, apart from thinking she hangs around people who are too hairy or fat or whatever, what do you think about Ms. Sheehan's basic contention that the war was misrepresented from the start and has been pursued badly for completely murky ends? And that she, as a mother who lost a son in that fight, has a perfect right to try to hold the president accountable?

Even with the Soviet threat waning, it was not uncommon for neoconservatives to denounce anyone who cautioned against the Reagan and Bush adminstration's arms buildup as a Communist sympathizer. It was even worse in the early '80s, as anyone who was part of the nuclear freeze movement will admit.

really? there was really as much of a "he who questions is therefore a traitor" emphasis 16 years ago?

I didn't make that assertion in particular...that said, I'm sure if I Lexis-Nexis'd Gulf War I coverage, I'll bet I could find right wing kooks (B-1 Dornan, for example) who were out there on the fringe. What I'm alluding to was precisely your point, which was (to repeat the post I just made, where I quoted you directly) "we've reached the point when ANYBODY who says anything contrary to whatever the Party line of the day is immediately attacked."

what do you think about Ms. Sheehan's basic contention that the war was misrepresented from the start and has been pursued badly for completely murky ends?

I'm not precisely familiar with Sheehan's contentions so I'll go on what you tell me: I think that the war was misrepresented from the start, both intentionally and unintentionally, I think that it has been pursued as well as it could have been and has been exactly what I expected, and I think the ends aren't necessarily murky but unrealistic. I think that, as a mother who lost a son in the fighting, has EVERY right to hold the president accountable.

That said, she (and no one here has denied this) has changed her story. She had a chance to call the president on his line of bullshit once before but didn't have the balls to do so until she began this campaign in front of his ranch. I'm not very impressed by that element of the story, but, like so many fights when you are not facing your accusor eye-to-eye, it's easy to be full of piss and vinegar. The other issue is that her son wanted to be in Iraq. That's why he resigned for more fun in the sand. It's one thing to be full of rage at the man who sent him to war, it's another thing altogether to ignore the disconnect of her son's explicit desire to do willingly participate and issues of military accountability. And frankly, as a father of two and another one in the oven, I don't think you need to have lost a son or sibling or relative or loved one to demand accountability.

Finally, my point about the relationships she's made in order to hold the president accountable is that some are certain to distract from her message--it is not the insidious work of wingnuts or Rovian gestapo that forced her to go on Air America or post on Michael Moore. Those two outlets, coupled with her comments from last summer, turn what might be thoughtful criticism into something easily spun into partisan warfare.

For crying out loud, not everyone in the world is a political junkie. Maybe some people would be meticulous about who they align and associate themselves with, and the hoariness of every canard they posit. But other people out there are say, mothers of troops that died in Iraq, who are sick of the war and aren't going to take it anymore. If someone puts a camera in their face, they're going to give their opinion. If someone gives them a blog to post on, they're going to take the opportunity to get the word out to as many people as they can. Not everyone is an amateur political strategist. And we already have plenty of those - we could use more real troops' mothers. Joe and Jane Moderate Voter aren't so dumb - when they see her interviewed, I think they can tell that her emotion and opinions are authentic and have weight, no matter how the right spins things in order to preach to their own choir.

Nonsense. Where is it written that you get one shot to make your point? You've posted more than a few times here just today.

I still clung, and continue to cling, to my humanitarian reasons for invading. Since this was an administration which publicly sought to nurture a revulsion in the Muslim world for Islamo-fascism, I thought there was at least a possibility.

Of course it's "partisan"! She doesn't like the president. She's said she voted against him. The president is "partisan" too. How would you go about opposing the president in a "nonpartisan" way? It's just like the bullshit critique of people "politicizing" an issue -- anyone who gets involved in public affairs is de facto engaging in politics. Saying politics is political is saying nothing at all, and in a two-party system pretty much anything political is going to be partisan. So what? So she went on Air America. She also went on Fox. She's gone on anywhere that would give her a microphone, which is exactly what you'd expect an activist trying to raise the volume on an issue to do. Critiquing the color or shape of her soapbox is just a convenient way to try to marginalize her.

That's turned out just swimmingly. But turning people against an ideology isn't a "humanitarian" exercise, either.

Do your homework before you shoot off your mouth Rasheed. I have posted it. It was published. Either you're lazy or willfully ignorant.

Don, I asked you where it was written that you only get one shot at making your point to the president. This is your answer? Either you're lazy or willfully ignorant.

But to answer your question, it's not written anywhere that you get one shot at making your point to the president. The reality is that most citizens never get one, so the one they got probably counts for something.

Apology accepted.

But to answer your question, it's not written anywhere that you get one shot at making your point to the president. The reality is that most citizens never get one, so the one they got probably counts for something.

There may be many things for which to criticize Sheehan, but not being able to spit her entire point out when she was put in a room with the president isn't one of them.

I read that piece too, Ned. I looked for Dan in the bar afterwards but, sadly, the bartender told me he'd gone to the library to read old issues of "Dissent" on microfiche.

Let's pretend this is actually true. Let's say she's not Cindy Sheehan with a documented history of skepticism of/opposition to the war. Let's say she's Mom X, who even after the death of her son in Iraq was a flagwaving, gung-ho, full-on Bush-Cheney supporter, and she gave interviews at the time saying so. And let's say that a year-plus later, she's now leading a protest vigil outside the president's vacation home because she has become disillusioned with the war and its rationales and with the honesty and/or competence of the people guiding it. OK, let's say all that. Let's say she "changed her story."

So?

I just don't see how this is supposed to somehow undermine her position. Is anyone suggesting that her position and convictions now are not sincere and heartfelt? That she's really a war supporter, or that she really does admire the president, and she's doing this all to...what? Get on TV? She could get on TV on the other side too. What is she supposed to be gaining here?

It's just an utterly nonsense attack, is what I'm saying. First, it's not a true or honest reading of her own positions. Second, even if it were, it would in no way undermine the validity of her current thoughts about the war. And it would, of course, do nothing to actually address the issues she's raising.

I don't know why I still take the bait.

Truer words never spoken.

Atrios' link is hardly conclusive--the reporter who wrote the story on the Sheehans last summer reporter says, "I stand by my full report as an accurate reflection of the Sheehans at the time of the interview." So either he was totally in the dark about Bush being disrespectful last summer and Sheehan's attitude towards the meeting, or Sheehan didn't bother to tell him. Seems a little odd that someone was so distressed about Bush's behavior that she didn't mention it to the reporter who asked her about her meeting--Sheehan's found a lot of traction in her current version. Language games, indeed. Who's being gamed here?

if you occupy all your time policing others, you don't have to think about yourself too much

And we all know what Atrios, Boehlert, Huffington, rawstory, and the rest of those originating links spend the vast majority of their time doing, don't we. But I like this idea as a general guideline for ILX political threads.

People might see it as a sign of a lack of integrity if she has changed her story (of course, there's no possible way she could have changed her story--she's been the very beacon of righteousness and consistency all along and if it weren't for thost bastards on the right wing and lunatic morons like don wiener shitting all over an ILX thread, the entire nation would be behind her and she'd be meeting with that dolt George W. Bush RIGHT NOW.)

Unlike, say, the Bush administration, which has had only one unimpeachably accurate story to tell about the reasons for invading Iraq, and has stuck to it, to the letter, since day one.

Quite. Don's thoughts on the right wing-as-current rulers of the country have always even astoundingly negative, as well as completely consistent with his own stated beliefs.

The mistake I make in wading into this is trying to explain the other side when I don't even necessarily agree with that side. I don't think Sheehan's criticisms are invalid at all. I don't give a fuck if she changed her story. I'm only trying to point out that it could be reasonably seen that she has changed it, and some people may reasonably see this change as a lack of integrity. It's a similar criticism that was thrown at David Brock--if you weren't honest then, what makes you honest now?

If anyone can point to one instance where I've tried to make Sheehan seem unsympathetic or irrelevant or a nutjob, please alert me to the syntax. I don't have much respect for Michael Moore, and the Crawford group I first linked to seems a little sketchy, but the point of linking her to them was of political alliance, not of their relative saneness. The other aspect of that is that the wingnuts see her dalliance with those groups as proof positive that she is as much a political operative as an earnest protester. This is exactly the logic jump that liberal groups make with John Roberts and his non-membership in conservative legal associations.

To gypsy's point--all this shit obscures her message, which hasn't really wavered at all. The very people who need convincing about the status of the war--Bush, for example--are much less inclined to take her pleas seriously when she appears to be either inconsistent or purposefully aligned with his political enemies. This is now yet another sad political football.

The very people who need convincing about the status of the war--Bush, for example--are much less inclined to take her pleas seriously when she appears to be either inconsistent or purposefully aligned with his political enemies. This is now yet another sad political football.

What I was getting at in my previous post up the thread a bit, is that I think moderate members of the public, who are even more important to convince (since Bush won't change his mind anyway), can be convinced in some way by a genuine message from a real person. Attempts to spin it that are fairly weak (which is how I'd classify "she's inconsistent" or "she's aligned with wackos") will appeal mostly to the already converted.

FWIW I didn't think you were arguing to make Sheehan seem like a nutjob, just that you'd take her more seriously if she hadn't apparently changed her story, etc.

There are, in fact, some principles involved here. Any citizen has the right to petition the president for redress of grievance, or for that matter to insult him to his face. But the potential number of such people is very large, and you don't have the right to cut in line by having so much free time that you can set up camp near his drive. Then there is the question of civilian control over the military, which is an authority that one could indeed say should be absolute. The military and its relatives have no extra claim on the chief executive's ear. Indeed, it might be said that they have less claim than the rest of us, since they have voluntarily sworn an oath to obey and carry out orders. Most presidents in time of war have made an exception in the case of the bereaved—Lincoln's letter to the mother of two dead Union soldiers (at the time, it was thought that she had lost five sons) is a famous instance—but the job there is one of comfort and reassurance, and this has already been discharged in the Sheehan case. If that stricken mother had been given an audience and had risen up to say that Lincoln had broken his past election pledges and sought a wider and more violent war with the Confederacy, his aides would have been quite right to show her the door and to tell her that she was out of order.

http://www.slate.com/id/2124500/

Ed Schultz's comment about this, aside from, "oh goodie; more of her private life is in the newspapers now," was to ask how the death of a child affects divorce rates...

what about the part where I big upped "Jesus Hates George Bush" as a t-shirt slogan? was that unbiased enough for you?

If this thread comes off as too "unbiased" and "objective" its probably because many of us are more interested in attempting to accurately chart the course of the conflict, rather than waste time yelling at each other (which won't change policy or media coverage one iota).

GRRRRR...

hahaha. i direct you, anon sir, to my frequent use of the term "reactionary fuckheads." Also, to the suggestion that Ms Sheehan wear a "No Fat Chicks" t-shirt should she even successfully meet with the preznit again.

but yeah, a bunch of folks discussing various debates in an attempt to follow the standard post-Elightenment, rationalist tradition. no surprise there. radical language is only useful for cementing currently-held beliefs, not persuasion.

would you have it another way? would you prefer something akin to a cable news/freeper shouting match?

I don't think that argument's weight is quite so inexplicable...
-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), August 16th, 2005 5:44 PM. (gypsy mothra)

Yeah I think that argument, as old as it is, can on the other hand never be refuted, as no one can ever say there's something that sets Cheney's daughters above Sheehan's son, so no matter how tiresome it gets, it can never hurt to dig that one up.

As for Hitchens' article, I'm not so impressed, because what's his point? She has the "right" of a grieving mother to sit outside Bush's house, but not the "right" to actually meet him face-to-face because the president doesn't have enough hours in a year to meet with everybody. But we all knew that already, right?

As presidential approval numbers and support for the war has dropped off since the start of Bush's second term, more and more people are in a position where they HAVE reconsidered their position on Iraq. I would consider Sheehan's political importance to be as the face of a larger trend in public attitudes, rather than what she says or the liberals she consorts with.

The vitriol thrown at Sheehan is in direct proportion to the amount of natural sympathy she could elicit for the anti-war cause.

It can easily be refuted. It's a volunteer army. I don't want to join the armed forces. If my neighbor wants to join, whether for economic reasons (paying for college, say) or because he has a patriotic duty, he should; it's his choice. Whether a war -- any war -- is fought for honorable reasons or its architects lied, how does that devalue the soldier's duty? For fuck's sake.

And voting, do you not align yourself with millions upon millions of others who engage in "lazy recidivist thinking", thereby undermining your credibility?

To suggest that I might need some political experience before I write about politics...

I never suggested this, nor do I think I implied it.

My point was wholly other than this. It was that by limiting yourself to the noble activites of voting, staying informed and writing, you are thereby able to achieve some sort of dudgeon over "lazy, recidivist thinking" and its prominent part in the political process, while achieving almost nothing else. You can, however, stay pure in ways Cindy Sheehan has not in her attempts to get things changed, which I expect is a gratification to you.

But that's what I'm saying! I don't have to re mind you to turn on Fox or CNN, or to chat with any of your coworkers, to know that this is a considerable achievement. Moreover, I'm proud that we've been able to keep this debate relatively civil. Imagine if Novak and Carville were in the room.

If I sound like I'm pontificating from the empyrean, well, so be it. I can't control perceptions. But the least I can do is act like it doesn't make me better than anyone else.

xpost

well, i won't just let my links speak for me - that's just not true

I wish people could figure out that Don's criticisms of the left do not automatically imply an endorsement of the right.

The mistake I make in wading into this is trying to explain the other side when I don't even necessarily agree with that side

no, the mistake you make in wading in is trying to 'explain' the other side by repeating or linking to their talking points (which constitutes an endorsement in my book). i play ping-pong by linking to my side's talking points when it appears from others' responses that they haven't seen the information that takes apart the misleading stuff Don posts.

The very people who need convincing about the status of the war--Bush, for example--are much less inclined to take her pleas seriously when she appears to be either inconsistent or purposefully aligned with his political enemies. This is now yet another sad political football

oh i see. it's ok for bush to have been rude or robotic to a mother with a dead son if she is later supported by his political enemies. i did like the idea, though, that the mother of the dead son should cast aside her shock that the president is essentially pretending that her son doesn't exist other than as some hazy embodiment of his great fight for freedom and should make sure to take advantage of her brief visit to the throne to get in a word about her partisan objection to the war.

If anyone can point to one instance where I've tried to make Sheehan seem unsympathetic or irrelevant or a nutjob, please alert me to the syntax

here you go:
1) Will the real Cindy Sheehan please stand up?
2) it's fine to change your mind about something. but it's a long way to sainthood when the detour involves revising history.
3) her ploy
4) She's not trying to make a sensible argument ... She's enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame
5) being in the room with the president probably silences even the biggest of egos
6) she's been the very beacon of righteousness and consistency all along

Finally, I'll throw in two more just for good measure
1) taints taste good
2) more fun in the sand

as for this...

It's one thing to be full of rage at the man who sent him to war

have you ever heard audio or seen video of Cindy Sheehan? did she strike you as "full of rage"?

I seemed to get a distinct whiff of this attitude in regard to Ms. Sheehan. Perhaps I was mistaken.

yeah, "never be refuted" was bad logic on my part. What I should have written was in some sense "never gets old" - the argument not meaning literally "Cheney, send your kids to Iraq" but rather implying "you have the responsibility to listen to me because you sent my kids to Iraq and not your own". Anyway, that's sounding pretty weak now because I've been trying to write quickly enough to not get a million x-posts stuck between my posts and what I'm responding to.

now, now, now, mr gabbneb, i'll not have you besmirching the fine, upstanding reputation of taints.

And in repeating those charges, even just for educational purposes, you are more or less furthering that strategy.

I don't agree. Until I showed up on this thread, not one mention was made of the story that ran last summer about Sheehan's meeting with the president. Until I noted on this thread (after others had made a Moore-ian connection, not me) that Sheehan posted on Moore's site, it was an invisible alignment. I mean, is this the standard you endorse for a political discussion on ILX? That we now forbid discussing motives of the messenger, the integrity of the messenger, and the financial backing of the messenger in order to exclusively focus only on the message?

Not sure why Gabbneb thinks that Sheehan's depiction (as told to the NYT and CNN, quotes via his own links) of her meeting with Bush is different from the one in her local paper. The pingpong here is that it took Sheehan over a year to get out her new version of how callous Bush was last summer, and that's a pingpong that has only been disputed by Sheehan. I guess if the original reporter was Sy Hersh or Ron Suskind we'd be able to know conclusively that Sheehan had changed her story. Instead, we're stuck with some smalltown wordsmith who was probably bought and paid for by Rove and had to make up shit, only to find that 16 months later, one of his interviewees changed her story. If it weren't for the vaunted oppo-research/goon squad of Herr Rove, the poor fella would merely be a footnote in the ether. Instead, he probably got a free NRO hoodie.

As for your list Gabbneb, it's not very convincing given that:

#1 - a call for consistency in her depiction of the meeting does not make her unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob
#2 - I wasn't implying that she was campaigning for sainthood, but that other people were elevating her moral position despite her inconsistency. This does not imply that she is unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob
#3 - her ploy is that she can reasonably accused of changing her depiction of the meeting. unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob
#4 - she changed her depiction of the meeting with Bush and has been doing everything she can to be in the media. She could have done this and said all this last summer but didn't. Instead, she changed her story and now suddenly has found herself a temporary media darling. This does not make her unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob. It looks like she's enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame.
#5 - a response to Gypsy's post that is actually sympathetic to a citizen getting face time with a sitting president. I am sympathetic to this because I had about ten minutes with GHWB and was equally deferential and respectful in my behavior. This has nothing to do with Sheehan being unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob. The biggest egos I refer to are the many political leaders of our country who bitch and moan on camera and then get face to face with Bush and keep the rhetoric toned down.
#6 - sarcasm, you know it, and of course it does not make Sheehan unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob.

And as for your addendum, #1 has nothing to do with Sheehan so that doesn't make her unsympathetic, irrelevant, or a nutjob and #2 has nothing to do with her either. You're confusing sophomoric with sympathy, and frankly, if you think a discussion of taint-eating degrades this thread, then, well, you simply haven't eaten a good taint.

It takes you all the way to your last point to actually find one example. So, I guess there was at least one time in this thread where I possibly made Sheehan seem a little bit nutty. When your efforts are this fruitless, no wonder you think this is such a waste of your time. Hey--we agree on something. Hopefully it won't be the last.

Hell no, people can talk about anything they want. But when they parrot party-line Fox News diversionary tactic arguments, I might maybe point it out.

wow, you don't just do it to her, you do it to the reporter too.

it's quite clear to me, having actually heard the way Sheehan speaks - a measured, careful tone imbued with sadness - that Sheehan's quotes from the original story were faint praise, because she could not muster more.

but you don't need to know what she sounds like to reach this conclusion. all you have to do is read the words - she says she has a new respect for Bush (because she didn't have any before) because he actually met with a parent of a dead soldier (because she didn't think he would do even that much), because he was sincere (she regards him generally as without sincerity), and because he's a man of faith (in himself, like bin Laden).

the key here is that she came away knowing that Bush felt "some pain" for her loss. "some"

enh. even as a troll, that was some weak salsa right there.

in fact, you sir get the Weak Salsa Of the Night Award.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/5619/salsa5ap.gif

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/08/16.html#a4479

Also, remember that to a lot of these people(those currently in high office and their supporters), changing your mind is of utmost sin. "A strong person" should either choose a stance or set on a course of action and never, ever alter it, no matter how incorrect that course turns out to be or how inaccurate or irrational that stance is. Even when new data emerges or the situation changes, you don't alter your course, even when you've floored it straight into a wall. Otherwise you're a flip-flopper.

Changing your mind might be seen by some as an admission of a mistake being made, and many of these folks lack the emotional capacity for such internal honesty.

From two days ago:

Ever since I read Alfred Kazin's merciless takedown 20 years ago and Christopher Hitchens' screeds I can't take their writing or sloppy thinking seriously).

But she undermines her authority by associating with the Moore crowd, who are about as intellectually indefensible as the Podheretz claque. I mean, for Sheehan to posit - as many of the Air America crowd have already, repeatedly - that Bush and his team should send their sons and daughters to Iraq is subscribing to the hoariest canard of all.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...), August 14th, 2005.

But recently:

I find it impossible to resist his Jedi powers.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...), August 16th, 2005.

Except in this column he addresses one specific point: the right of a grieving mother to crave her second audience with the president. At his best he can express your own reservations with a clarity and rhetorical force you can never muster, as in that fantastic column he published a few weeks ago regarding the why-don't-you-send-your-daughters-to-war-Mr-Cheney argument which carries inexplicable weight with some dissenters.

-- Alfred Soto (sotoal...), August 16th, 2005.

I apologize if I'm confusing something. Actually I'm apologizing only to myself, for parsing positions on an ilx political thread is even more futile than on ILM. ]]]

I'm just sort of flabbergasted here at the problem some..any... have with her changing her position from over a year ago - so what? Wouldn't you expect most war families to be supportive of their soldiers efforts/ greater "cause" (as ill-defined as it has remained), prior to their tragic deaths and accidents? Also, in what serious context could anyone compare the Civil and Iraq Wars? An unjust / immoral war is not going to inch any closer to being either moral or merely through the marytrdom of those expected to be tenaciously obedient, at all costs.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_digbysblog_archive.html#112397669655412143

The Latest

I know this isn’t going to popular on this website, but may I just point something out?

A soldier’s #1 job is to stay alive. If you die, you can’t accomplish the mission, and you weaken your team and put your buddies in danger.

Obviously Sheehan’s son, I forget his name at the moment, didn’t die on purpose, and he may well have have had no control over the circumstances that let to his death.

BUT.

In war, there are no excuses. You find a way to stay alive, whatever it takes — if you’re a good soldier. Sheehan’s son didn’t do that. He paid the price. but he als failed the mission and let down his buddies.

As a soldier, he was a failure. He was brave (maybe), but he was also incompetent.

So, really, how much exactly are we supposed to grieve over this guy? Isn’t a certain amount of disapproval in order for the guy — and by extension his mom, for making such a fuss over a person who was, in the last analysis, by definition a loser?

So shouldn’t Mrs. Sheenhan be showing a little more shame about the situation and maybe not wanting to get her son and his shortcoming splashed all over the media?

Something to consider, anyway.

Peace crosses outside Bush ranch crushed by rogue driver


1 hour, 32 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - A driver mowed down crosses bearing the names of US soldiers killed in Iraq in the latest act opposing peace activists outside President George W. Bush's ranch, the demonstrators said.

In the dark late Monday, the driver of the sports utility truck went onto the grassy side of the road to knock down the crosses which had been placed by activists supporting Cindy Sheehan, whose campaign against the Iraq war has drawn widespread publicity.

According to participants in the peace camp set up less than a kilometer (half a mile) from the entrance to Bush's ranch, the driver was detained by police and could face charges.

"He did not yell anything, he did not say anything, he just ran his truck over the crosses," said Charlie Anderson, a former US soldier in Iraq who has joined the activists.

On Tuesday morning, some of the crosses were still flattened or broken in the grass. The activists replaced some.

Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, set up the camp outside Bush's Prairie Chapel ranch about 10 days ago to call for the 138,000 US soldiers in Iraq to be brought home and demand a meeting with the president.

So, really, how much exactly are we supposed to grieve over this guy? Isn’t a certain amount of disapproval in order for the guy — and by extension his mom, for making such a fuss over a person who was, in the last analysis, by definition a loser?

This kind of stuff needs to be publicized more, so that the GOP can lose the 'moderate' vote forever.

So that's at least one nice outcome out of all this.

hee hee. Remember the Samantha Bee bit with the roomful of undecided voters in october/november of last year? She pretty much melts down in front of them. "I don't know why the fuck you still need to decide! they're just so fucking different! i just don't fucking get it..."

it was the greatest thing she's ever done on the Daily Show

It gets ugly in Crawford

We thought the blowback against Cindy Sheehan hit rock bottom when Bill O'Reilly suggested that her vigil in Crawford, Texas, "borders on treasonous" and Michelle Malkin offered up the view that Sheehan's dead son wouldn't approve. Then we thought it couldn't get any worse when the president of the United States said he couldn't take the time to meet with Sheehan because his exercise schedule was more important.

We were wrong. On Monday night, a driver in a pickup truck rammed through rows of white crosses Sheehan and her supporters have placed across a road near the president's Crawford ranch. So much for supporting the troops: The crosses bore the names of soldiers who were killed in the war in Iraq.

Monday night's incident was just the latest sign that things are getting ugly in Crawford. Over the weekend, one of Bush's neighbors fired a shotgun in the air as Sheehan and her supporters began a prayer service. He said he was getting ready to hunt doves. And according to a Bloomberg News report, some of Bush's Crawford neighbors plan to go to court in Waco today to seek an order prohibiting anyone from parking or stopping on roads near Bush's ranch.

The neighbors' efforts could run into a roadblock stronger than the white crosses that once stretched across the roadway. It's called the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment to which protects the right of the people "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Update: Although Bloomberg said that Bush's neighbors intended to go to court to stop Sheehan's protests, the neighbors actually filed a petition today with local county commissioners, the Associated Press is reporting. In their petition, they seek to have an existing no-parking zone around Bush's ranch extended so far that any protestors would be forced to relocate to the town of Crawford, about seven miles away. The commission said it would hold a public hearing on the request in about four weeks -- in other words, after the president's five-week vacation has ended.

Tracer Hand, meet Michelle Malkin.

Note that this is the same chick who just put out In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror.

...The personal attacks on Cindy Sheehan were inevitable and unavoidable. The reason for this is very simple: Bush’s defenders can find no solace in the facts. They must use other means to attack their opponents. They can’t discredit their opponents’ arguments, because their opponents are right. So they must destroy their opponents personally. Thus, we have all the claims that Sheehan is “being used,” that she’s being “exploited,” that she is literally insane, that she’s a “radical leftist,” and all the rest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050816/ts_alt_afp/usiraqbushprotest_050816220629

in related news, several hundred vigils are being organized nationwide for tomorrow night at 7:30pm.

This is a bit odd, since this is a candlelight vigil, and it doesn't get dark til long after that.

wtf? is this another "I saw them pulling babies from incubators" thing?

also, my photos from one of last night's vigils in Portland

and neat little link about how the group bankrolling all this was started by a p.r. company in los angeles...

judging by how thin-skinned the rightwingers are, yes.

http://counterpunch.org/walsh08262009.html

The silence in fact is deafening, or as Cindy put it in an email to this writer, “crashingly deafening."

I hate when things are crashingly deafening. It's like the hearbreak of ear mites.