How soon before the RNC issues more talking points to “discredit” these people?
The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.
“We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out,” Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, said Tuesday.
Schroeder, 23, died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion, one of 16 Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.
The soldier’s father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.
“Our comments are not just those of grieving parents,” Paul Schroeder said in front of the couple’s home. “They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone’s family has been violated.”
Marla Uhles lost her son, Marine Lance Cpl. Drew Uhles on Sept. 15 in Iraq.
Therefore, she understands the pain Cindy Sheehan of California is feeling at the loss of her son in Iraq.
However, Marla Uhles said she has a difficult time supporting Sheehan…
Marla Uhles said Sheehan has gone “overboard” and it has become more about the publicity.
“I don’t know, I think she’s more out for herself right now than for her son,” she said.
Lisa Short said some days are better than others since learning in early November that her son, Lance Cpl. Aaron Pickering, had been killed while fighting in Fallujah. She still holds onto the last letter Aaron sent her and reads it almost daily. She reread it again Monday.
“He said, ‘Mom, our presence here is necessary,’” Short said.
That’s why she said it’s difficult for her to believe in Sheehan’s cause. This is an all-volunteer military, she said, you sign up knowing you might put yourself in harm’s way.
“That’s the whole point of joining the military,” she said. “I don’t support what she’s doing. I just can’t.”
She said perhaps it is Sheehan’s grief that has propelled her to take her cause this far. She understands that feeling of losing a son at such a young age. Aaron was 20 when he died.
“Sometimes you feel desperate enough to do anything,” she said. “I don’t understand the point of it – it’s disrespectful to our kids.”
Matt and Toni Matula:
“Matthew was very proud of being a Marine and proud of his unit and what they were doing,” Toni Matula said.
When the Matulas saw the Crawford protest on TV, something did more than just bother them.
“All this stuff going in Crawford, we’ve just been watching it and shaking our heads until two days ago, we saw the crosses with the names on there,” Matt Matula said.
On one white cross read the name Matthew Matula: their 20-year-old son who was killed in Iraq last year.
“He’s not a victim, he’s a hero, and I think that everybody that’s serving our country is heroes,” Matt Matula said.
“He knew joining the Marines, his chances are, that was the purpose. His main number one job was to defend our country. He was very aware of that before he signed up,” Toni Matula said.
So Matt Matula went to Crawford to stand up for his son, a Marine who proudly stood by the war he died in.
“I went there and had Matthew’s name taken off of there. It’s fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people’s names to further their cause,” Matt Matula said.
“For people to use his name against it is not what he died for. He died so that they can do that though,” Toni Matula said.
Debbie Argel Bastian is another mother who resents her son’s name being used in Sheehan’s protest:
The mother of a Lompoc soldier killed in Iraq is demanding that her son’s name be removed from what she considers anti-war memorials on the beach here and outside President Bush’s Texas ranch.
Air Force Capt. Derek Argel’s remains were buried with four of his comrades at Arlington National Cemetery last week. His mother, Debbie Argel Bastian, says the other memorials are an insult to his memory.
“I’m livid about it,” Bastian said of the weekly beach display on Santa Barbara’s West Beach and the smaller memorial in Texas, where the mother of another dead soldier has made headlines with a weeklong protest.
“Derek would not want to be remembered that way.”
I know, cut and paste, right. but these are the ACTUAL quotes from other parents who don’t feel the same way. stop playing this game with these heros.
I have more if need ‘em….
Fine, so you think Cindy Sheehan and her supporters are ‘playing a game.’ If the parents of those other dead soldiers want to comfort themselves by believing that their children didn’t die in vain, and that little Georgie’s failed Iraq crusade is a worthwhile cause, then no should bother to convince them otherwise. I’m sure thousands of parents of dead Wehrmacht soldiers probably held similar beliefs about Uncle Adolf’s quest for German supremacy over Europe.
People are entitled to honor dead soldiers in any way they see fit, no matter the futility of the cause in which they died. Remember when Ronald Reagan went to lay a wreath at the grave of those SS soldiers in Germany? But I digress.
Meanwhile, more parents of soldiers killed in Iraq are getting visits from solemn-looking men in military uniforms. Cindy Sheehan, for one, has decided to channel the energy of her grief into living up to her responsibility as a citizen of democracy: her son was killed in a war that was launched for no good reason, and that is failing badly, and she is demanding that the ostensible Commander in Chief explain why.
So if the parents of the other dead soldiers want to clutch their folded flags while they stand up in support of the war that is currently killing dozens of other people’s kids, then that, again, is their right. I will save my sympathy and support for people (like Sheehan) who have the good sense and the spine to act like they know better.
Nickname –
The point is that those parents of dead soldiers who stand up and out against the war in Iraq, such as Cindy Sheehan, also stand a good chance of becoming the targets of the Right wing smear machine. You won’t see anyone on the left pouring through the personal lives and public records looking for dirt on Marla Uhles, Lisa Short or the Matulas. The Right and supporters of the war in Iraq have decided, on the other hand, to brook no dissent to their leader, George W. Bush, and his policies. They have decided that no tactic is too low to destroy those who voice opposing opinions. Neither the families of servicemene (Sheehan) nor servicemen themselves (Paul Hackett) are off limits for their political smears.
And you still haven’t answered Sheehan’s question in your own words.
I think most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden. We just did not send enough troops in there to do the job. The troops that did go there did an outstanding job and came close several times to achieving their objective. But, according to the Downing Street memos, Bush and his cronies were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq and getting Saddam. So that became their new objective, before completing the job in Afghanistan. Toppling Saddam was easy. We could have done that with minimum loss of life and without sending in all those troops. But then we would not have needed Halliburton to go in there and get all those contracts to support the troops. You have to be blind and stupid to think Dick Cheney was not behind this fiasco.
I do not think we are any safer here from terrorists. Our National Guard troops should not be over in Iraq fighting and dying. They should be here in this country protecting the borders, nuclear power plants, and airports and shopping centers. I think we would be more safe if we brought back most of our troops who are overseas, and station them here in this country.
nickname,
I suspect that about 60% of the families of soldiers killed in Iraq feel the way the people quoted do. As some of the people there said themselves, this is an all-volunteer army. These guys knew what they were getting into. They did not feel themselves to be victims. “They were heroes.” They felt they were doing some real good in Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war soldier families read into the whole thing an entirely different message. To them, the soldiers joined before the Iraq invasion, and thought they were defending the United States – not fighting in some misguided ideological conflict of dubious value (I’m paraphrasing their views here). The soldiers were tragic victims. They fought valiantly for their country, even as their country’s civilian leaders wasted their courage for no good purpose. I would say that about 35-40% of families of soldiers killed feel this way. Probably the families of minority soldiers feel this way more than the high-profile white mothers like Sheehan (minorities, especially African Americans, repeatedly express extreme disapproval with the war.)
The problem here is that all of these families need to grieve privately over their own loss AND they need to express the public nature of their sons’ sacrifice for their country. Since the families are divided, and the nature of military sacrifice is that it is for the public (they died for us, etc.) there really is no way we can expect either side to keep quiet. I don’t expect this conflict to cool off at all. I suspect Cindy is the tip of the iceberg.
I sleep fine because I can see that both the left and right are full of hypocrites. Unlike the leftwingnuts, I don’t pretend otherwise. Hate to break it to you, but the left’s shit stinks just as bad as the right’s.
As far as Cindy Sheehan, as I have said before, it is obviously a trgic situation to lose a child under any circumstances and she is most certainly entitled to her grief. Her protesting is disingenuous, however, and in fact, is doing nothing to advance the questions that should be raised. She met with Bush, she had her moment and is pretending otherwise.
Like it or not, she is now a public figure (seemingly by design if you ask her family) and her statements are fair game, particularly her anti-semetic sentiments which she has freely posted on the Internet.
You guys sure know how to pick your patron saints.
I think most people supported the invasion of Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden.
NOT CINDY SHEEHAN!
from Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.
SHEEHAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?
SHEEHAN: I don t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we re saying. But they re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.
MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.
SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.
MATTHEWS: But that s where they were being harbored. That s where they were headquartered. Shouldn t we go after their headquarters? Doesn t that make sense?
Paul Hackett pretended to support the president to win votes….he couldn’t be honest to win
this is his own commercial
Cindy Sheehan has every right to protest, does she deserve the coverage she’s getting? i would argue yes, ONLY if they were fairly covering everyone, BUT THEY ARE NOT.
the media is largely NOT REPORTING things that Ms. Sheehan has said…
like this tasty quote. “…America is NOT worth dying for”
you see I’m one of those delusional “bias pimps” that Oliver refers to…the only problem is that I’m not delusional.
When parents of a Marine from Ohio killed in Iraq call in question President Bush’s strategy in Iraq, advocating either escalation or complete withdrawal, and call Cindy Sheehan “the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war”, “The Washington Post” thinks the story is important enough to make page A02 of the paper
When a mother of a Marine from Ohio killed in Iraq says “The dedication to the cause is something to admire… How proud we are of these young men, and what they continue to do and what they stand for”, it gets the last paragraph of a story on page A19.
No, you’re saving that “honor” for John Roberts’ kids.
http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/08/video_voter_dec.html
link was bad in my previous post…be honest and ask yourself if this guy based from this ad is disagreeing with the president?
I’m too busy patrolling the streets because you’re too chicken to help reduce crime.
I see English isn’t a first language for neoconsrloopy.
I said she is a public figure now and her “statements” are “fair game.”
I am by no means claiming that “Parents of war dead are ‘fair game’” that was your lie.
Only in Lib-land can someone be “smeared” merely by telling the truth…
I would ask how you sleep at night knowing that you are exploiting grieving mothers?
Hedley: Parents of war dead are “fair game”. Just like undercover CIA agents I guess. You are despicable.
Always a kick to see the left take the moral high ground.
“You won t see anyone on the left pouring through the personal lives and public records looking for dirt on Marla Uhles, Lisa Short or the Matulas.”
I guess the left is too busy pouring through the personal lives and public records concerning the adoption of children by a Supreme Court nominee.
I sleep fine, because I’m not supporting making more grieving mothers, you are. But not your own, because you refuse to serve.
I totally support any relative of a war casualty, whatever ideology they put forth. I agree with Cindy Sheehan’s position and support her efforts to speak truth to power.
However, I would NEVER attack a parent who feels that the war is just, if they have lost a child to that war.
It is the most difficult thing in life to lose a child, my parents lost my brother a few years ago. If they feel that their child died doing something noble, it is not my place to question them directly. I wouldn’t want to think my brother gave his life for nothing, either.
Some parents of soldiers, along with most Americans, realize that this war is a scam, and want to fight to stop there from being more war dead. And instead of supporting them in their pain, the right smears them.
How do people on the right sleep at night knowing they are smearing the mother of a dead soldier?
“I guess the left is too busy pouring through the personal lives and public records concerning the adoption of children by a Supreme Court nominee. ”
It’s good you wingnuts didn’t go through every financial transaction and social interaction of President Clinton and his wife and parents, otherwise your statement would make you all hypocrites.
Why the deflection? Hedley, how do you sleep at night knowing that you are smearing the mother of a dead soldier because you don’t like her politics? Why do you hate our troops so much?
No matter how hard I work, I can only be second stupidest, though, everyday Jay C, Hedley, Ferris, and Nickname tie for “Stupidest posts of the day”.
LOL LOL LOL ROFL ROFL ROFL
I sleep fine, because I m not supporting making more grieving mothers, you are.
Chalk that up as one of the stupidest comments of the day.
How old are you, neoconsrloopy?
Say what you want about Cindy, but a lot statements attributed to her are of dubious origin. She denied ever making the comment about Israel. Maybe it belongs in the same file as the one about Bush’s former TANG commander who supposedly complained about W’s AWOL service.
I would hardly say exploit and the press is representing her as all mothers of fallen soldiers.
The difference between Randal and Michael is that we know Cindy’s wishes, we did not know if Terry would have wanted Randall near her or not.
Say what you want about Cindy, but a lot statements attributed to her are of dubious origin.
people say alot of stupid things when they’re mad and hurting… I don’t really care that she said all that stuff. what matters to me is how the press exploits her to represent all mothers like her.
is there a difference between randall terry going down to terry schaivo’s nursing home and michael moore and his ilk hitting the trail to crawford?
she’s now complaining that the press is over crowding her…
Cough! (Terry Schiavo) Cough!
The difference between Randal and Michael is that we know Cindy s wishes, we did not know if Terry would have wanted Randall near her or not.
Hey zappa…I don’t recall Army Spc. Casey Sheehan requesting Michael Moore’s presence!
Here’s one from a letter she wrote that was sent to Nightline:
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel.”
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bullyard/msg/7f523b1a73be1a36?hl=en
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&msg_recent=&rid=20405
I thought that Cindy was the subject nickname. I also don’t recal Moore being next to Casey’s deathbed…you asked a question – I tried to answer. Do you have a different question?
All you people who support the President’s war in Iraq against terrorism and believe with all your heart that that is the way we should be fighting terrorism, should take a leave of absense from your job and leave your families and volunteer for duty in Iraq. Either as military or civilian. About 6 months ago a 70 year old woman from Lawton, OK volunteered to go over there and work in food services. Anyone who is not willing to do that is in my book, a coward.
I did not support the war in Viet Nam, but because they were drafting everyone including married men, I volunteered because I was single and did not have as much to lose as others had to lose. I survived Viet Nam 12 months, but I know a lot of our best men did not survive.
Bush survived by going AWOL after he learned to fly fighter jets. Everyone I know who went through that type of training was obligated to several more years than he served.
Cheney never served at all because he kept getting a student deferment until he could no longer be drafted. He had better things to do with his life than going into the military and going to Viet Nam. Later on he was Secretary of Defense and Vice-President.
I also don t recall Moore being next to Casey s deathbed.
no one was allowed in her room to see the “beautiful and peaceful” starvation.
The point is, Randall swooped in with terry s PARENTS…
and you cried foul then, but not now, with the left’s notorious grief pimp: Michael Moore
Speak Out In Anger
Another family who has lost a child in Iraq speaks out.
Good point, nickname. I have two thoughts on it. First, in line with Oliver’s post on “protests”, polyglot leftwing protests in Crawford only serve to dilute Sheehan’s central anti-war message. Even if you agree with Cindy and the anti-war cause, the rush of peripheral movements to her side doesn’t help. Second, I think she’s having mixed feelings about being the “Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement.” On one level I think she relishes it. She is obviously not just a grieving mother. She is a major anti-war activist and she admits as much. She describes her supporters as part of a movement. But the power of her symbolism, and the media attention lavished on her has made her a major player in the high-stakes battle of national politics. There is a logical reason why the media focuses on her – an anti-war grieving mother who camps out on Bush’s ranch during his vacation is a pretty compelling story, especially in a month where attacks on US troops have escalated again, and polls are showing loss of support for the war. 54% of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake – she is, for good or for ill, public vessel for those increasingly anti-war perceptions nationwide (including in red areas of red states). However, she may not have been prepared for what she was getting into, and now she says that anybody other than fellow grieving families should leave Crawford. Perhaps she is channeling Oliver and senses the dilution of her cause. More likely, she got in over her head. I disagree with her prescription for getting out of Iraq. And I probably disagree with a lot of her politics. But I don’t think she’s some crazy lifelong perma-protestor. She’s just naive – both about the power of her own symbolism and the actual future of Iraq.
I guess the left is too busy pouring through the personal lives and public records concerning the adoption of children by a Supreme Court nominee.
For supporters of a man who willingly smeared John McCain over the children he adopted, this is laughable.
I just tried Googling up info about M. Moore in Crawford. Came up empty. Are you sure about that?
I guess the left is too busy pouring through the personal lives and public records concerning the adoption of children by a Supreme Court nominee.
From supporters of a man who willingly smeared John McCain over the children he adopted, this is laughable.
I would say the biggest difference is that Michael is right more then Randall.
Nice of you to lump everything into one big bucket – “You cried foul then…”….
makes it easy to hate those that disagree?
nickname,
What kind of argument is “see, these parents lost kids and *they* disagree with Sheehan” ?
By that standard, the War in Iraq is inherently wrong, because there are people who disagree with it. It’s nonsense.
Your point is irrelevant. Sheehan has every right to do what she is doing, and now that she has been invited on to PRIVATE LAND, so has all the room she needs.
SaveFerris,
I m too busy patrolling the streets because you re too chicken to help reduce crime.
BWaaak!! BwWWWaaaaak!! Bwak! Bwak! What, are you a cop? Are there no ex-peace officers in Iraq?
Sign up, or shut up!
“What does anything Cindy Sheehan is doing have to do with Michael moore, who isn’t even in Crawford?”
For the record, even though i consider Michael Moore to be a pretty repugnant person, I do think some in my party use him as the ultimate boogeyman a bit too much.
That being said, i think the reason his name keeps coming up is because she’s (she being Ms Sheehan. I refuse to call her “Cindy”, as if i know her) posted on his website. Whether he contacted her or vice versa, I don’t know and I don’t care, but i think that’s where he comes into all this.
I see.
Michael Moore gave her some space on his website. You’re right. That’s just like Randall Terry showing up for a press op at Terry Schiavo’s hospice.
well, nice semantics…Dobson never WENT to the schaivo’s residence either…
this was the frontpage to Moores website until recently..
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7871/866/1600/greifpimp.jpg
c’mon. don’t play games. Michael moore is all over this, whether he physically there or not….
no one was allowed in her room to see the beautiful and peaceful starvation.
The point is, Randall swooped in with terry s PARENTS&
and you cried foul then, but not now, with the left s notorious grief pimp: Michael Moore
What are you talking about?
What does anything Cindy Sheehan is doing have to do with Michael Moore who isn’t even in Crawford?
nickname, by that standard every newspaper and cable TV outlet in the country is also a “grief pimp” supporting Cindy. They’ve all had her on their Web site front pages at some stage.
Moore’s site these days is effectively a “truth about the war” special interest newspaper. Why wouldn’t he mention Cindy? It’s relevant to his newspaper’s readership.
But, I forgot, in wingnut land, merely mentioning that an event has happened indicates support for an event, and a nefarious scheme to exploit it. That’s how you’ve managed to claim for all these years that the media has a liberal bias for merely reporting the events of the day without fear or favor.
In Wingnut land simply opposing the policies of this president is enough to be declared un-American, anti-military and in cahoots with the terrorists. God forbid two people should actually stand together to oppose the policies of this president, then suddenly everyone involved is a “grief pimp.” Glad you finally found your voice, nickname, but you still haven’t used it to explain why invading Iraq was a noble cause.
That aside, why is it that grieving mothers are supposed to sit quietly in the corner with their anger? Why is that grieving mothers aren’t allowed to get angry, at all? Or, worse yet, angrier? Sheehan is only the most effective focal point to date for a very simple concept: The president has a lot of explaining to do to the American people and the men and women in the military. His policies in Iraq have been a dismal failure and yet all we here from Bush and his administration is the same lines we’ve been hearing all along: “Freedom is on the march, we’re turning a corner, the enemy is desperate, this is hard work.” They have scoffed at raising the troop levels in Iraq, they have scoffed at withdrawal, or drawdowns. Are you trying to tell me that Bush Co. got it just right and that our current situation in Iraq is the best we could have ever possibly have hoped for? No way. This president has some explaining to do.
And don’t give us anymore of your MSM media bias bullshit. I live in Los Angeles County. If every school in LA county had been repainted and was given new books but I had to wait in line for hours to buy gas, I only had electricity eight hours a day or less, the city’s mayor was run out of office by an armed mob and I lived in fear for the life of my family and myself because 4,000 innocent people had been killed by terrorists in the last five months, and the consitution that was supposed to bring me peace and freedom heralds the return of Islamic law, what the fuck do you think I’d expect to see in the headlines every day? If it bleeds, it leads? Iraq is a bloodbath. Which is great because the fucking water is so contaminated no one can use it. And you don’t think the president owes us an explanation. Or maybe I should say, a different explanation because the one he has now — it’ll all be fine come mid-terms ‘06 — ain’t operative anymore.
In the proud Nickname tradition I give you cut and paste from Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:
“You can support the troops but not the president.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
–Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
–Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
–Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
–Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
–Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
–Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Mr. Curmudgeon – On one hand, I would agree that by simply pointing out that there are those that do not agree with Cindy, that is insufficient to prove one’s position. On the other hand, those that agree with Cindy use her position as a greiving mother as a blanket defense against any substantive criticism of her.
By the way, southpaw’s chickenhawk insult is insulting to those of us who have served.
“On the other hand, those that agree with Cindy use her position as a greiving mother as a blanket defense against any substantive criticism of her.”
But what’s substantive criticism got do with it? Who here or elswhere has offered any substantive response to Sheehan’s essential point: The war in Iraq is an unjust tragedy that must end now? The Right’s standard tactics have been to suggest that either Sheehan’s grief is clouding her judgement or that she has a political agenda that undermines her credibility. Neither attack, quite deliberately, even comes close to addressing her charges and demands head. Beneath the surface of both attacks is one underlying, implicit assumption: Sheehan is crazy and so to are her beliefs. This is not substance, this is classic propaganda.
“The Right s standard tactics have been to suggest that either Sheehan s grief is clouding her judgement or that she has a political agenda that undermines her credibility”. They undermine her credibility because they are true. She does a good job on her own of undermining her credibility.
Thank you frameone. The right’s hypocrisy has been on full display in the Sheehan issue, and their behavior in this thread is no different. Anytime someone publicly pierces the Radical Right’s paper-thin belief bubble, they go on the attack. That’s why Michael Moore is their favorite target: he has raised good questions about the right’s hypocrisy and corruption, and he has been very successful at it. Instead of addressing the questions Moore raises, they crank up the slime machine.
The same thing is being done to Cindy Sheehan. Scum like Michelle Maglalang and Assrocket will pick on her because she has effectively shown up their Dear Leader as the sniveling, smug, overprivileged piece-of-shit coward that he actually is. She has raised the ultimate question about this phony war– a question that millions around the world raised before the shooting started– and the war supporters don’t like it.
Instead of admitting that they were wrong, and that they are supporting an incompetent criminal of a loser, they will attack those who are trying to show them the light. These are the same kind of people who wanted Jesus Christ nailed to a piece of wood; the truth will set the righteous free, but it always hurts the ears of the ignorant assholes.
Who here or elswhere has offered any substantive response to Sheehan s essential point: The war in Iraq is an unjust tragedy that must end now?
Her view is not an “essential point.” It’s an opinion, nothing more. It’s incumbent upon her to lay out specifics as to why we should just yank all of our troops out of Iraq. How exactly does one lay out a substantive response to an irrational emotional demand?
The Right s standard tactics have been to suggest that either Sheehan s grief is clouding her judgement or that she has a political agenda that undermines her credibility.
Contrary to Maureen Dowd’s idiotic claim that the moral authority of any parent who loses a son or daughter in Iraq is ‘absolute’, it’s not. There are parents of those who have lost their lives who still agree with the mission and are not calling for the troops to come home. Is their moral authority absolute? In addition, if there was some mother whose profile was elevated due to her support of what we’re doing in Iraq despite losing a song, and it was revealed that she had donated money to the President’s campaign in 2004, that would immediately to many on the left completely discredit her. Don’t even try to deny it.
Neither attack, quite deliberately, even comes close to addressing her charges and demands head. Beneath the surface of both attacks is one underlying, implicit assumption: Sheehan is crazy and so to are her beliefs. This is not substance, this is classic propaganda.
Where is the substance in her charges?
“Why did you kill my son?”
“President Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world!”
“You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East.”
Those are just a handful of her outrageous statements. Where is the substance? And why should anybody address such nonsense?
Fot crying out loud redux, can any troll on this thread directly answer one, single, simple question: What noble cause are we fighting for in Iraq? Answer that question and we can begin a real discussion. So far no one has.
frame,
“What noble cause are we fighting for in Iraq?”
I’m not now a soldier, but my take would be that getting rid of a sadistic-murderous dictator and his legacy, democracy, stability and peace in the Mideast, and victory in the WOT are noble causes. I also think that in a “democracy” it is noble that a soldier does his duty and fights, yet does not have to agree with or “understand” all the reasons he is fighting. I’m sure some of those who did service during the Clinton years did not always agree with decisions but did their duty. But I also think that, practically, we can’t go to war over every noble cause.
Dugger
Jay C –
There you go again. I didn’t say anything about Sheehan’s moral authority being absolute. I clearly said that if there’s an argument to counter her belief that Iraq is a tragedy that needs to end now let’s hear it. Sheehan believes that her son died for nothing because this President abused his power, the American people and international law in pursuit of a corrupt agenda under cover of national defense. Can you present the case that she is wrong? There are plenty of facts to suggest she’s right on a multiple of fronts, from corruption to incompetence: the Downing Street memo, Halliburton’s massive accounting “irregulities,” billions of missing dollars in CPA funds, the complete lock out of Iraqis from their own economy when it comes to major reconstruction projects, the slow and irregular pace of those reconstruction projects, the complete and continuing failure to effectively deal with a rising insurgency and sectarian violence. Do you have any response to these charges? Sheehan definitely has a way with rhetorical flourish, let’s say, but the basic charges that brought her to Crawford remain the same and resonate with the American people. This president owes us an explanation. If you support the war, grieving parent or not, you need to make your case in the face of current reality in Iraq just as Sheehan has made her case that this is an unjust, corrupt, tragic misadventure that must end now. So Jay C, care to tell us in your own words what the noble cause is?
You know guys, someone better come up with an answer soon because not even Henry Kissinger knows why we’re there:
“Kissinger stressed that the US should withdraw troops that were not necessary to the goal of stabilising Iraq.
‘But we cannot begin with an exit without having first defined what the objective is,’ he added.”
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=152678148&p=y5z678854
JD –
How does someone’s political agenda undermine their credibility? For crying out loud that means Bush has zero credibility. Or don’t you believe that the president of the United States has a political agenda? What are you thinking?
What noble cause are we fighting for in Iraq?
First off, we removed a sadistic dictator that with his rhetoric and his past actions created the very ‘unrest’ in the Middle East, opponents of the war claimed would happen if we went to war. He encouraged terrorism. He offered to finance it.
Our actions in Afghnistan and Iraq laid the foundation for some of the things we are seeing in that region. Anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon. Qaddafi’s ending of Libya’s WMD programs. Israel agreeing to pull out of settlements in Gaza. Pro-democracy Iranians looking to make serious changes in their country. You think all of this happened by accident? Do you truly believe this would have taken place if not for what we’re trying to do over there? If anybody here would have said 2 years ago that at this time:
A. Saddam Hussein would be removed from power and ready to go on trial
B. Successful elections would be held in Iraq with participation higher there than in our own country.
C. A new constitution on the verge of approval
D. A new Iraqi army of nearly 200,000 would be in place
All of this with unfortunate deaths of less than 2,000 soldiers and with scattered terrorist attacks (it is not an insurgency) that are increasingly focusing on civilians making them increasingly unpopular amongst Iraqi citizens.
The Downing Street Memo is a complete non-starter and proved absolutely nothing. As for reconstruction, electricity supply is now higher than it was at pre-war levels. Oil exports are up and there’s just a host of stuff that USAID is doing on a smaller scale that is very positive.
That being said, Sheehan has not made any case for anything. There’s nothing to tell her because she has already reached her conclusions: That this is a war fought for oil, to enrich Bush’s friends and to satisfy some neo-con imperialist agenda in the Middle East.
And stop with the troll bullshit. I’ve been posting comments on OW’s blog for a years now.
Sorry. Missed a sentence. If somebody had said in 2003 that all of the above would happen in 2 years time, you’d be claiming they were ready to be fitted for a straight jacket.
JC, at first glance your list seems pretty impressive; but scratch at the surface and one finds that your assertions are so far off the mark as to cast serious doubt on either your intelligence or your integrity.
Care to provide some evidence? Because I should let you know that I lived in Lebanon, and still have family there and your view of what is going on there is very different from ours. As for the rest, you’ll need to show a causal relation between the failing action in Iraq and the changes in the Middle East before your assertions can be taken seriously.
According to the Brookings Institute, only 94,256 Iraqi troops are trained and effective (as of March 2005), out of a total of 171,913.
Iraq police are barely equipped to do their jobs. Of their various requirements, they have 41% of the weapons, 25% of the vehicles, 17% of the communications and 31% of the body armour.
Not an insurgency huh? Amazing that even Fox News calls them insurgents, along with the rest of the Bush Administration. The Brookings Institute also calls them insurgents. But as we all know, a rose by any other name, etc. These “scattered terrorist attacks” have increased from 8 a day in the month of June 2003, to 70 in May 2005. Violent incidents against the coalition and its partners have been on the rise consistently since the beginning of the war.
Technically, you’re correct. Pre-war level of generation was 3,958 Megawatts a day. As of July 2005, it’s risen to 4,583 MW. That’s the equivalent of supplying approximately 250 additional homes (about the size of a small neighbourhood). Not exactly a good return on investment.
It was a non-starter in the U.S. because for some reason the media didn’t report on it. Practically everywhere else in the world it was a sensation. And although not a proof in and of itself, it provided further evidence that the Bush Administration was willing to “fix” the data around its policy.
So, you want to try answering that Noble Cause question again? (this time with feeling!)
As for the rest, you ll need to show a causal relation between the failing action in Iraq and the changes in the Middle East before your assertions can be taken seriously.
Oh that’s rich. Show a causal relation between something you already conclude is failing? These things did happen. Don’t start moving the goal posts and saying I have to prove a direct link between the two.
Not an insurgency huh? Amazing that even Fox News calls them insurgents, along with the rest of the Bush Administration. The Brookings Institute also calls them insurgents.
Well good for them. An insurgency is defined as a rebellion of sorts. Sorry if I don’t consider bombing women and children as part of a rebellion.
It was a non-starter in the U.S. because for some reason the media didn t report on it. Practically everywhere else in the world it was a sensation.
Of course it was. A good conspiracy theory about the US government is going to be lapped up all over.
So, you want to try answering that Noble Cause question again? (this time with feeling!)
Please note that you did nothing to refute what I said. All you did was complain about the level of the successes. You cherry picked particulars.
Somebody asked a question and I answered it. It’s not like anything I was going to say was going to change anybody’s mind.
Well, then how about the bombing of an occupying army? Wouldn’t that qualify as insurgency?
Correction: 625 MW will power approximately 31,000 homes. In the context of powering an entire country, that is still a drop in the bucket (an average city has approximately 650,000 homes).
What I’m asking you to prove is whether these things (ie. changes in the “region”) happened as a result of the action in Iraq (the failure comment was my own snark). And yes, you do have to show a causal relation to support your claim that Our actions in Afghnistan and Iraq laid the foundation for some of the things we are seeing in that region..
What I did was systematically debunk much of what you presented as evidence of the successes in Iraq which people, like yourself, seem to trot out whenever the Noble Cause question is asked.
You did not answer the question, you posted your opinion of what that answer is. You are of couse entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree with it. The end result is that the Noble Cause appears to be whatever someone thinks it is. How convenient.
Well I’m glad to see a couple of the deadenders around here have finally decided to answer Cindy Sheehan’s question directly. See how easy that was? You both can now say that you’ve done more than the president.
Suffice it to say that both Dugger and Jay C believe that it is a noble cause to liberate a people from a ruthless dictator while, in the process, ensuring our own national security. You will get no disagreement from me there. But (ya knew it was coming) is that indeed what we have accomplished or are accomplishing in Iraq? Have all our noble intentions achieved anyting noble at all — except, as Dugger points out, once again revealing the dogged commitment, perserverance and sacrifice of our men and women in the military? Certainly, a majority of the Iraqi people have shown themselves willing to face grave danger to participate in the democratic process. That’s certainly shows they are possessing of outstanding qualities, as well. Sadly, it seems that all this real nobility may go to waste because at least one half of this noble cause was a lie and the other was, to put it bluntly, woefully naive and misguided.
I think Mouse has done most of the work in exposing just how out of touch Jay C really has become — “scattered terrorist attacks”? 4,000 innocent Iraqis have died in the last five months — but naturally I’d like to throw my two cents in here.
It’s without doubt that Bush violated international law by invading Iraq without explicit UN authority. No matter how ruthless Hussein was he represented the sovereign government of Iraq. Still, there’s no point in arguing about the morality of doing a bad thing to do an even greater good thing, so let’s move on to the fact that one of the greater goods put forth by Bush — and echoed by both Dugger and Jay C — was that removing Hussein from power would make America safer. It clearly hasn’t. Hedley talks about Lebanon, Libya, Gaza and Iran as if they were all democracy dominoes just waiting for the right push to fall. It is indeed, the dominoe theory in reverse. And yet the government of Iran seem eeven more emboldened, not chastened, in its pursuit of nuclear power. North Korea has certaintly not been cowed by our show of force. In lining up his dominoes, Hedley quickly forgets every other contributing factor to the developments he cites, putting the invasion of Iraq at the top of the list, forgetting the years of UN economic sanctions that crippled Libya before it finally accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and moved to rejoin the world community. In the case of Lebanon he forgets the assassination of former prime minister, Rafik al-Hariri, as the final straw of Lebanese tolerance of Syrian involvement in their affairs. I ask you, if Syria had cracked down instead of withdraw what would the US have been able to do to stop it? What would we be able to do military with all our resources tied down in Iraq? Nothing. And the Syrians — and the Iranians — know it. We are now in a more precarious position in the middle east than we have ever been. What happens if Bush decides to bomb some Iranian nuclear facility and we kill some number of Iranian Shiites? How well would that go down with the Iraqi Shiites we’re trying to help? An argument could be made that our involvement in Iraq has radically limited our strategic options in the region even as it has emboldened our enemies because they know that our military is strecthed too thin and that we are too embroiled in sectarian politics to do anything. So no, I don’t think we are safer. Certainly, London wasn’t. And I haven’t gotten to the main problem with the “ensuring our national security” part of the noble cause: At the time of the invasion, Hussein was no threat to us whatsoever.
BUt what of HUssein now? First off, Hussein may be in jail, in defiance of all prognostications circa 2003, but we have not removed the threat of his regime. His regime still terrorizes the Iraqi people on a daily basis. Only ten percent of the terrorist fighters in the country (let’s not quibble over semantics) are foreign born. Most of the rest are, indeed, former members of the Baath party, Sunni extremists and other Hussein loyalists. We are indeed at war, Hedley, with the very same people we’ve been at war with since we crossed Iraq’s borders. They have evolved and reformulated their attack. We, sadly, have not. Not because our soldiers on the ground aren’t capable of doing so, but because George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have not given them the ability to do so. Why? I’m sure I couldn’t say but we’ve all long since put to rest the idea that Bush was actually listening to the “commanders on the ground.” So in placing all of the attention on Huseein himself as an individual, Bush and his administration misread the bigger picture. As a result, Hussein’s supporters are still killing Iraqis.
Which brings us to the woefully naive and misguided problem with the noble cause. Dugger himself says it best: “I also think that, practically, we can t go to war over every noble cause.” Everyone knows that we did not invade Iraq solely to liberate the Iraqi people. We invaded Iraq to secure America and the region and liberating the Iraqi people was the way were going to do it. Well, once the securing America thing went out the window with the phantom WMDs and the insurgency, all we were left with is liberating the Iraqi people. Not a bad consolation prize but where are in that process at the moment? At best we can expect an Iranian-style theocracy to emerge. At worst, total civil war. That is are our last best possibilities proves that Bush and his team of supposed foreign policy “adults,” didn’t have the slighest idea what they were getting themselves and the country into. And once they were they, they had no idea what to do or how to do it. They took your noble cause, Dugger and Hedley, and pissed it away.
Which brings me to my final point. Despite the often inspiring acts of nobility that we have seen along the way the invasion of Iraq was no noble cause, it was, at best, Bush’s folly.
This response is exactly why the whole “answer the question” meme is so transparently childish. You already know the rationale for the war, you have heard it ad naseum. And you are not looking for answers, this is not a quest for some type of understanding. You have your beliefs, which are unshakeable.
Your own words belie your preconceptions, as being the holder of an unassailable truth, ie. “at least one half of this noble cause was a lie and the other was, to put it bluntly, woefully naive and misguided”, or “It s without doubt that Bush violated international law by invading Iraq without explicit UN authority”.
Now these statements likely reflect your own personal opinions, but do not reflect some universal truth, unavailable to us, the unwashed and unenlightened.
You’re right; we do not have access to a universal truth unavailable to others. Leaving aside the issue of whether the administration lied in the run up to the war, there is no doubt that the planning for the war was woefully inadequate. The looting that occurred immediately after the invasion is one indication; the inability of U.S. troops to accomplish the deliverables they were assigned (protect the oil; re-build the infrastructure; prevent terrorism and an insurgency from rising up, and capture Saddam Hussein’s sympathizers) is another more glaring piece of evidence. Let’s not forget the lack of proper armour for the troops themselves.
And by planning, I don’t just mean ensuring the necessary resources in terms of troops and administrative support; I mean actual planning and forecasting of what was to come. Planning would include activities such as studying previous such actions and anticipating with some degree of accuracy the outcome of such action; planning for expected and unexpected risks and developing mitigations and risk management plans. These involve basic project management skills. Yet at every turn this Administration went against the advice of career professionals, touting the moral necessity of maintaining a rosy outlook, and going so far as to suggest that Americans would be welcomed as liberators.
Everything I have said so far is easily verifyable and this information is available to anyone with access to a computer or a newspaper.
As for the legality of this war, I expect that you put little or no value in the opinions of Kofi Annan or a previous UN Secretary, so allow me to quote someone who was, until recently, a Bush Administration familiar and favourite on November 19, 2003:
…influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”
(snip)
…Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that “international law … would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone”, and this would have been morally unacceptable.
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been “no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein”.
This is also available via Google.
I would like nothing better than to believe that the government of the most powerful nation on earth invaded another country with the best of intentions. If I believe that, then the only conclusion I can come to is that they are incompetents of an as-yet uncharted level.
In a way, we are giving them a bit of credit for having the intelligence to harbour ulterior motives. It’s almost a comfort to believe that there is some great big secret that will one day explain the blood spilled in the name of America.
Hence the demand for the Noble Cause. Even if it’s one we will abhor, let there at least be a Cause of some kind, noble or not.
Mouse,
Were you in the service ?
frame,
Some of that was pretty good anlysis. Some of it a little ideoloically formulaic. This is true, however: “we did not invade Iraq solely to liberate the Iraqi people.”
Myself, I support none of the Bush lied or its about oil arguments, but I do sometimes wonder how the original case for going into Iraq holds up today: UN Sanctions – OBE’d; WMDs – we expected to but didn’t find any; part of the WOT – maybe but why not Syria or Pakistan or wherever. I believe the Neocons regard the Iraqi action as the cornerstone for a long term strategy of “modernizing” the Mideast; to eliminate as a perennial world trouble spot. In doing so, they belive this will actually, almost coincidentally, win the WOT. If Iraq could become a model modern democratic Mideast state, it might start a good domino effect. It would be much easier to leverage other countries into something similar. This is a rather noble underaking (if at all true) but it is also a gamble. People foregt that Iran under the Shah was a relatively progressive Mideastern state. It reverted to a backward theocracy. I hope it will, but why will Iraq be different?
Dugger
“This response is exactly why the whole answer the question meme is so transparently childish. You already know the rationale for the war, you have heard it ad naseum. And you are not looking for answers, this is not a quest for some type of understanding. You have your beliefs, which are unshakeable.”
I’m sorry you think my response was so knee jerk. But the fact of the matter is, for a variety of reasons, none of the arguments for IRaq as a noble cause are operative anymore. Homeland security, a more stable middle east, a free and democratic Iraq, it is, sadly, all out the window. That’s exactly why aksing the question is so important. Let’s talk about where we are at and where we are going today, let’s set aside the good intentions of yesterday. If Bush meant well, fine. But whatever nobility existed in the initial gesture, if you can call a preemptive invasion a gesture, is gone, lost not by anything the vast, vast majority of our troops have done (there’s still abu ghraib, let’s not forget) but because the people who planned this thing have done such a piss poor job of following through. The facts on the ground have changed radically for the worse and continually repeating the same thing about our “noble cause” only continues to blind Bush to the reality of what’s happening.
And as to the legality of the invasion I believe it’s possible for anyone to consult the mutiple treaties and organizations we belong to that strictly forbid, exactly what we did. It isn’t my opinion.
Asking the question is not important to you, as you have dismissed all answers out of hand that do not dovetail with your beliefs.
frame,
None of those “noble” reasons are out the window. They are or were (or were not to the cynics) noble because of the perceived motivations. The “why”. That motivation is not changed by how events have subsequently gone. And things aren’t getting radically worse. To me, a better way of saying it is that aren’t improving as fast as we would like and we are worried that they may never improve enough or that we can even define what “enough improvement” is. If there is a real problem here, IMO it was with the perhaps original idea of invading and thinking we could change something permanently in the character and nature of Iraqi society.
Dugger