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.

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.