Go read this if you have not had your fill of the Sheehan circus.
And for another persepctive, go read Arthur Silber, who supports Cindy Sheehan’s political activism.
by John Cole| 69 Comments
This post is in: Politics
Go read this if you have not had your fill of the Sheehan circus.
And for another persepctive, go read Arthur Silber, who supports Cindy Sheehan’s political activism.
Comments are closed.
What Grant said
One of the best quick overviews I’ve read about Cindy Sheehan’s Crawford protest comes from a fella named Grant in Balloon Juice’s comments:
[Y]ou have to admit the Bushies were asking
Mike
John,
I truly don’t understand why you would be so hateful toward Cindy Sheehan. Who Would Jesus Hate? I don’t recall reading “Hate your enemy” anywhere in the Bible. Does it make you feel better somehow?
Aaron
Amen.
John Cole
I am not hateful for the woman. I am sorry for her. She was against the war, her son re-enlisted anyway, and now he is dead and she is distraught. It is a terrible situation for her to be in.
Zifnab
No one actually hates Cindy Sheehan until Rupert Murdock cuts them a check for doing it.
jerry
A) Bad linky to Arthur Silber
B) Just what does “last time” mean to you again?
Far North
John,
I know you are 100% behind what we are doing in Iraq. But, just what are we doing in Iraq? Why are we in Iraq?
Would you be supportive of what Cindy Sheehan is doing if you were opposed to Bush’s Iraq adventure in the same way you are opposed to her actions because you support Bush’s actions?
Jill
War supporters are pissed because every reason the Administration gave for going to war was a lie. War supporters trusted the wrong people and now they either have to continue to believe the lies or admit they were wrong to blindly support the war. The questions Cindy Sheehan wants answered are the very same questions that we as a country have already been lied to about and some have believed hook, line and sinker.
demimondian
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
Look, there’s plenty of sneering to go around here — and plenty of disingenuousness, too. (I’m looking at you, John Cole.)
Is Cindy Sheehan an anti-war activist, using her son’s death to forward her cause? Yes.
Is Cindy Sheehan an anti-Bush activist, using her son’s death to forward her cause? Yes.
Is there anything wrong with that? It depends on what her son would have though of it, so I can’t judge that. My guess — on the basis of what she’s reported, so take it for what it’s worth — is that he would have supported her use of his death. In that case, no, there’s nothing wrong — or morbid, or ghoulish — about it.
He died, which is a personal tragedy for her. She believes — correctly — that the particulars of her loss make her peculiarly able to protest the president’s policies, and she is, therefore, doing it. (Notice that I carefully said “peculiarly able”, not “peculiarly correct”. That peculiar ability will be used by other Iraq war widows and orphans for a long time yet, to argue for many political causes.)
The term “media-whore” is a disreputable slander in that case. Erick et. al don’t like what she’s protesting for — but protesting anything is all about publicity, and she is getting that, by the only means possible. Jumping on that bandwagon really isn’t fair.
Grant
John, I appreciate your allergic reaction to politics as spectacle. I really do.
But you have to admit the Bushies were asking for this one, or at least leaving themselves wide open to it. How many times have we heard how “The Ranch” – purchased expressly as a campaign PR device in August 1999 – makes Bush a man of the people?
Bush himself has explained how it helps him “stay in touch with real Americans.” Scotty McClellan recently proclaimed, “Spending time outside Washington gives the president a fresh perspective of what’s on the minds of the American people. It’s a time, really, for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what’s on their minds.”
Hmmm. That sounds like an invitation.
But seriously, Bush can’t have it both ways. He can’t prance around the country to a series of “town meetings” – to which only his most fervent supporters are invited – and not expect the opposition to attempt to tear down the façade. He can’t proclaim that the war is “hard work,” skip town for five weeks of vacation and then be surprised when the proles show up at his gate.
It may be the Sheehan circus, but it’s being performed on the Bushies’ stage.
jg
Yes he can. FOX and Rush will make sure the base is prepared to attack those who call all this for the bullshit that it is. They are not afraid of public opinion. They manufacture their own reality as they go forward. Its a self fulfilling delusion and half of us just aren’t in on it.
Otto Man
Well said. President Bubble Boy has lived in his hermetically-sealed alternate reality for far too long that this is the only way Americans can reach him these days.
He only allows those who already agree with him to enter his campaign events and, much worse, taxpayer-funded town-hall meetings. Even though the press has been toothless towards him, he’s still shut himself off from them. Anyone who dares to disagree with him — Shinseki, Clarke, O’Neill, etc. — is swiftly shown the door.
It’s long past time for someone to pierce the bubble around Bush. And what better place to do it than the Potemkin Village he’s created to make this Andover cheerleader and Yale Skull & Bonesman look like regular folk?
Ron Beasley
Is what Cindy Sheehan political? yes.
Is it a circus? yes
Unfortunately staging a circus is the only way you can get the attention of the MSM if you are anti-war or anti-Bush. The war is over–there is no way we can get anything resembling a win out of it. The only thing that continued US presence in Iraq will accomplish is more deaths. I doubt that it was ever a win situation but if it was Rummy has f**ked it up so bad it certainly can’t be now. If the Cindy circus speeds up US withdrawl it will be the most productive circus ever.
Stormy70
It’s August, this will die down when the Fall comes, anyway. Something big will happen and this will fade away, just like every other August “scandal”. Did the MSM cover the 100 pro-Bush people that showed up in Crawford, yet? They were on the local news here.
Don Surber
Zifnab sez: “No one actually hates Cindy Sheehan until Rupert Murdock cuts them a check for doing it.”
The corrollary is: “No one actually likes Cindy Sheehan until Ted Turner cuts them a check for doing it.
Pb
Fascinating, John. You say that you don’t hate her, but actually feel sorry for her. But you promote slander and personal attacks on her? What do you do to the people you like?
P.S. If you would like the specifics on the slander and personal attacks you are enabling, I’d be happy to oblige. First I’d point you to Erick’s original post on the matter, and then my (ignored) commentary in your first thread on the subject, and finally your first link in this post, and the comments there that enthusiastically supported it.
anthony
John,
You owe Steve Gilliard an appology for this:
*Where he just drops the word ‘media,’ but makes sure he gets the ‘whore’ part in. Funny how the metaphor looks like a literal use of the word ‘whore.’ Just one of those weird coincidences on the InterTrons!*
Steve quotes Erick’s entire piece immediately prior to writing his editorial comment. In what way, shape, or form can you say that Steve misrepresenting what Erick said when what Erick said is sitting there verbatim? In fact, you have to read what Erick wrote to get to Steve’s comment.
Rick
Considering how Ms. Sheehan is being pimped by the press, she is indeed as described.
It’s a relief to find in Balloon Juice one center-to-left blogger with a lick of sense and a huge dose of rationality. Wish it was a commonplace
Cordially…
KC
Cindy Sheehan will be out of the papers in a few weeks. Again, she’s doing what she wants to do, she’s not a “tool,” and she’s just trying to get her viewpoint pushed into the media. She’s got a platform now and she’s using it. It’s no different than our friend, James Dobson, who is staging events like Justice Sunday II to attract attention and get his message out there.
So really, what’s the rub? What is she doing wrong? If she’s undermining support for the war, well, from the polls I’ve seen support is fairly weak right now anyway. Moreover, maybe something good will come out of her protest. I mean, would it be wrong for Congress to start asking the administration for some straight answers on our Iraq strategy? Or, as I just heard in the car, is the problem with her the fact that she’s blogged on Michael Moore’s website? I guess I just don’t get all the hostility towards her.
Note: As per John’s post below on the Sheehan thing, I’m not at all excusing the change from “media whore” to “whore” initiated by some on the left. Nor do I think that calling someone’s phone and harrassing his secretary is right. All I’m curious about is the hostility towards this woman and where it comes from.
Otto Man
Really? What cable news network is Ted Turner running these days?
jerry
It’s a relief to find in Balloon Juice one center-to-left blogger with a lick of sense and a huge dose of rationality
Yep, good ole’ John Cole, the thugs consider you a lib. You should be proud of the idiots you associate with.
bains
Reading the comments here, I figure Jeff’s analysis was spot on, John. You’re a hateful, hateful man for repeating Ms. Sheehans own statements.
DougJ
“Something big will happen and this will fade away, just like every other August “scandal”.”
You said it, Stormy. Something big and more important than this — possibly a break in the Holloway case or something of that sort — will come along and blow this clown show off the front pages. It’s a shame this much coverage has been spent on this sideshow already, but I’m afraid that’s the way of our unserious media these days.
DougJ
“It’s no different than our friend, James Dobson, who is staging events like Justice Sunday II to attract attention and get his message out there.”
This is not a fair comparison. Dr. Dobson helps millions of Americans with the trials and tribulations of raising children. Ms Sheean is merely pimping for the anti-war loony left.
Mike S
Would that be the one where they were chanting “We don’t care?”
MisterPundit
More faux leftwing sympathy for Sheehan. What else is new? Not one leftwinger here would give her a second glance if she was a Bush supporter. Leftwingers don’t care about her, they care about her message, and her usefullness as a propaganda tool. For example :
http://dailykos.com/story/2005/8/13/9565/81042
You can’t make stuff like this up. It’s revolting.
RSA
I’ve come late to this “media whore” versus “whore” business, but I think that the remainder of Erick’s post is telling as well: . . .Mrs. Sheehan is using the body of a dead solider to get her fifteen minutes of fame. . .
“Using the body of a dead soldier,” huh? Well, there’s a nice visual metaphor for you, totally inconsistent with the high-minded phrase “media whore.” Funny that we don’t hear anyone saying, “Jeez, I wish Nancy Reagan would stop using the body of a dead President to pimp for more research on Alzheimer’s disease,” etc.
DougJ
“1. Emphasizing her sacrifice.”
As if lots of people haven’t made sacrifices. I’m sick and tired of hearing about Ms. Sheehan’s sacrifice. Lots of people have loved ones die, but most of them don’t go around the media pimping their stories with the help of their loony left buddies.
Jeff G
Pb writes:
My piece is the first piece linked in this post. I defy you to point out the slander and ad hominems with regard to Ms Sheehan in my post.
Unless of course you believe that any post looking at the Sheehan situation that doesn’t engage in blind idolatry is ipso facto slanderous.
Go to it.
Tronium
Note that this is a diary entry, not something from Kos himself. Doesn’t make it any less disgusting though. I’m in the middle on this whole Sheehan thing. Some of the remarks made on the right is over the top, but some on the left is clearly exploiting her as well. Some of the things Sheehan herself is saying are borderline anti-semetic, and hateful. The best way to sum this is up is “sad”, as John Cole said.
BumperStickerist
RSA –
The problem with the ‘media-whore/whore’ is simple – the people who made a big deal about the use of ‘media whore’ were internet-savvy. ‘Media Whore’ is a common term that does not, in any way, shape, or form, connote a ‘whore’.
Were the people raising a fuss about Erick’s use of ‘media whore’ Mennonite beat reporters, the Main Stream Media, or my mother, then I could understand the Outrage. But for Duncan Black, TBogg, et some to have a conniption fit over the use of a mild internet perjorative is just damn stupid, grasping, self-tizzy inducing behavior. They knew better.
The analogous situation for Right Wing types is Kevin Drum’s ‘STFU’ moment to Michelle Malkin on his blog. ‘STFU’ has, for me at least, lost its f-bomb sting and is just four letters you type out. Had Kevin written ‘Michelle – Just Shut.The.Fuck.Up’ then the OUTRAGE on the Right might have been justified.
MI
Yeah, or, ya know, using the word “whore” in any context when publicly referring to the mother of a fallen solider probably isn’t the best idea in the world. but fair enough, I’m willing to throw it in the Durbin file. An unfortunate, asinine misuse of language.
At any rate, I’m not really disappointed or shocked by the right wing on this one, there’s no depth they won’t sink, I think that’s pretty clear to everyone by now. But I am kinda disappointed by John..I think one of the reasons you have so many moderate and even lefty readers is because of your willingness to call bullshit when your side crosses the line. I have no axe to grind when I tell you this, but you’re way off on this one, buddy.
MI
And by the way, these attackts don’t help your side politically either. they do two things, they make moderate dems like me more partisan, and they turn the stomach of the more apolitical general public.
Look…this woman isn’t Michael Moore. I know you reallyreallyreallyreallyreally want her to be, but she’s not. I don’t care if they share the same position on the war, on politics, or on coke vs pepsi. she hasn’t made her career and fortune being a political propagandist viper. She’s a mother who lost her son in what she believes is a war based on lies, a view she know shares with the majority of Americans, democarts and republicans. And she’s determined to make sure no more mothers and fathers than necessary experience that same loss.
Disagreeing with her views on the war is fine, but that’s not what’s happening here, and let’s not pretend it is. What this is is a cold-blooded, vicious, heartless attack. If you don’t see that, or can’t distinguish between the two, you’re seriously missing the boat.
John B.
Everyone please just read this new article from the WaPost and think on these things: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html
MisterPundit
Funny, because the ghoulish way the left is using this woman as a pawn, is sending this moderate even further to the right. To each his own, I guess.
MI
I call bullshit. She’s not being used as a pawn, if anything, she’s using the left to get her message out. And God bless her for it.
And maybe you haven’t noticed, but recognizing that Iraq has turned into a shit hole isn’t a left/right thing anymore. “Get out now” or “Get the freaking job done and get out” aren’t Lefty positions anymore, they’re mainstream American positions. You might as well say Cindy is being used by my fought in Korea, dyed in the wool Republican, former Bush supporter, former Iraq war supporter grandfather, who hates what’s happened there and wants our troops home quicker than anyone you’re gonna find at DU.
This country knows the mess we’re facing didn’t have to happen. It happened because our leadership was arrogant and naive. It doesn’t matter if you’re left or right, or if you supported the war or didn’t, I supported the war for God’s sake.
The leadership back home didn’t come through, it failed our men and women in Iraq. It failed them miserably. They were lied to, I was lied to, you were lied to, we were all lied to. I don’t expect you to get tomorrow and start campaigning for Dennis Kucinich, but Jesus Christ, wake up and smell the fucking coffee already.
MisterPundit
Oh for Christ sakes, you sound like a clown. Will someone send in the smart leftwingers now? Preferably someone who hasn’t swallowed The Leftwing Idiots’s Guide To Hyperbole.
DougJ
I just wish that people like Ms. Sheehan understood how well things are going over in Iraq. How they’re getting things like good drinking water and electricity, as well as a free government and civil rights, for the first time in the nation’s history. How the insurgency is, if not in its last throes exactly, then at least decreasing in power. How it will be a model for other Middle Eastern countries and an anchor for freedom and democracy throughout the region. If she knew that, maybe she would feel differently.
MI
I didn’t intend to launch into full rant mode there, but what set me off was the pawn comment, because it’s noting more than a talking point, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s been used, and it will continue to be used, to attempt discredit anyone who speaks out against this admin. It’s akin to saying someone hates america, or that they’re “objectively pro-Saddam”.
Instead of actually and honestly dealing with some of the things this woman is saying, and disagreeing with all of it if you want, it’s, “she’s a pawn for the left.” oh, really? my bad. guess I’ll move along now, nothing to see here, pawn of the left, hates america, wants us to lose, supports al qaeda, doesn’t like baseball, doesn’t like apple pie or puppies.
I’m just sick of it.
MI
Hey DougJ,I assume you’re being sarcastic, on the off chance that you’re not, you should take a look at the WaPo article John B. posted a few spots up.
DougJ
MI, I saw that article and I think it is just another example of the MSM negativity about Iraq. Has that reporter actually BEEN to Iraq? I doubt it. I’ll take the word of the people on the ground over there over the word of some Washington Post reporter. There’s plenty of good news over there, too, the MSM just doesn’t tell us about it. Because they’ve been against the war from the beginning.
MI
I’m fairly open on issues like what to do about social security and what not, but my mind is pretty hardened about the war these days. Seems like yours is as well..agree to disagree?
MisterPundit
Okay MI, that was a surprisingly non-confrontational reply. You just made me feel like a damn bully. My temper is also on a short fuse these days. It is so frustrating to be so angry at people I agree with on so many issues, yet this one issue is ripping us apart. If this keeps up, we’re all going to end up being losers. It saddens me.
Anyway, I certainly don’t think that all leftwingers are using Sheehan for political purposes, but some clearly are (see my link above). How representative this type of behaviour really is among the left, I can’t say.
stickler
Man, you couldn’t write a Turing test that could parrot agitprop this efficiently:
I just wish that people like Ms. Sheehan understood how well things are going over in Iraq. How they’re getting things like good drinking water and electricity, as well as a free government and civil rights, for the first time in the nation’s history. How the insurgency is, if not in its last throes exactly, then at least decreasing in power. How it will be a model for other Middle Eastern countries and an anchor for freedom and democracy throughout the region.
Any measures for any of this? No, because DougJ heard it all on AM radio just before or after that snappy ad for CitriCal and the new SkinZinc powder. Go ahead and look for numbers on Iraq electricity production. Or drinking water.
Let’s revisit this howler:
…the insurgency is, if not in its last throes exactly, then at least decreasing in power.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. So far this month (it’s only the 14th!), 48 US servicemen and women have died. That doesn’t include the wounded. Source: http://icasualties.org/oif/
Search around that site yourselves. Yeah, I’d say the “insurgency is … not in its last throes exactly…” Shee-it.
MI
My temper is also on a short fuse these days. It is so frustrating to be so angry at people I agree with on so many issues, yet this one issue is ripping us apart. If this keeps up, we’re all going to end up being losers. It saddens me.
Now there’s something we can agree on, I know what you’re talking about and I think we’ve all been feeling that way lately.
I think one of the reasons arguments and discussions disintegrate so quickly is because of the assumptions that are made (like the ones I’m going to make in a second). This is going to be one sided because it’s from my point of view, but feel free to throw in your own experiences.
When I say to someone who supports the war that I’m against it, I feel like that has to go through a million layers before we can talk about any of the points. Cause first I hate America, or I just hate President Bush, or blah blah. And that does two things in my mind 1. It frustrates me that we can’t have an open and honest discussion, and 2. in a weird way, it makes me question just how honest their support for the war is in the first place. It’s like they’re more obsessed with my supposed hatred for Bush, than they our concerned that our military in Iraq has a decent war strategy. It makes me feel like they think the whole thing is some game.
I just get the sense that for a lot of people, acknowledging that it’s not all freedom flowers and school paintings and that we drastically need a change of direction, is like asking them to trip their QB as their football team is driving to win the super bowl. Its become a sport.
I have a friend who was motivated to vote for Bush because of Michale Moore. Dude hated Moore so much, it actually drove him to vote for the first time in his life. And to me, that’s how I see a lot of Bush-republicans as it concerns the war. It’s all about the extremist opposition, and I think that equals a loss for our soldiers in Iraq. It’s like…we can’t get together (you and I) and demand a better strategy, because in your mind, that means Michael Moore (or whomever) wins. And that’s completely fucked up to me.
Anyway, that’s my highly biased, one-sided view of why war arguments get so heated, plus a little putting thoughts in your head for good measure!
Far North
Can you imagine GWB trying to sell this?:
This war will last several years. By the summer of 2005, 1,850 American soldiers will be dead and tens of thousands will be wounded. By August 2005 the only safe place in Iraq for an American will be the heavily fortified green zone inside Bagdad. A trip to the airport without heavy military escort will be life-threatening. No WMDs will ever be found. No sign of a reconsituted nuclear weapons program will ever be found. All of the “Saddam can launch an attack in 45 minutes” talk will be revealed as complete nonsense.
Need more selling? At the war’s inception, we won’t commit enough troops to ensure security. We’ll blow off guarding critical infrastructure and allow looting to go unabated. American leaders will refer to the Geneva Conventions as “quaint”. By August of 2005, 62% of Americans will think that the Iraq war is an unwinable mistake. Insurgents will kill both Americans and Iraqis at will. By August 2005, George W. Bush will still be trying to convince Americans that his judgement was sound when it came to lauching this war.
I could go on, but why? You get the point. GWB, Condi, Cheney, Rummy, Chalabi, the whole bunch, they were so fucking wrong about everything. They didn’t bring any of this up in 2002 or early 03 because it wouldn’t have sold AND they had no idea any of this would happen. They just plain didn’t know what the fuck they were doing.
And what does this have to do with Cindy Sheehan? Well, she’s asking, “why are we there?. What did my son die for?”. And all you loyal Bush supporters have to trash her and condemn her because you’ve spent the last 3 1/2 years cheerleading the man that decided that America had to invade Iraq. And you Bush loyalists can’t stomach Cindy Sheehan because to acknowledge her legitimacy would mean that you were wrong. You were wrong about trusting Bush’s judgement. And you’ve been wrong on just about damn near every fucking thing about this war. And to all you Bush loyalists, you just cannot accept the fact that fearless leader could be even a little wrong, let alone initiated one of the greatest fuck ups any president can do: go to war unecessarily and put American troops in a no-win situation.
Critical thinkers, unlike blind loyalists, are constantly re-evaluating and re-assesing. Critical thinkers, unlike blind loyalists, are always adjusting plans as realities play out on the ground. But nothing that has happened or will happen in Iraq will ever seem to give pause to Bush and his loyal supporters.
Nice war we got here, ain’t it?
Far North
MI,
Cheers! I appreciate the way you articulated that. Nice post.
MisterPundit
It will probably come as no surprise that this is precisely how I feel about the left. It feels like a contest to see who can come up with the most elaborate spin, rhetoric, and often, the most immature insults (insert Bushitler Nazi Cokehead Chimp references here). To me, the odds of having an intellectually stimulating conversation with someone who says “And to all you Bush loyalists, you just cannot accept the fact that fearless leader could be even a little wrong” is null. There’s just too much ideological baggage there to make it worth my time.
Anyway, you may be relieved to know that there is an awful lot of people who support the war for reasons completely unrelated to party or president (ps. I’m Canadian). Just look at blogs like this one, Instapundit, Captain Ed, and many others. I remember when I heard that Wesley Clark was entering the race on behalf of the Dems I almost died and went to heaven. Unfortunately (and this is why I wish presidential candidates would stay away from their stupid advisers) Wesley Clark’s camp decided to out-Dean Howard Dean. What a shame. Then Michael Moore jumped on the Wesley Clark train, and that was that.
While I have my problems with Bush, I don’t think he lied. Perhaps that is the axis around which most opinion regarding the war revolves – did he lie, or not. I believe he got bad intelligence regarding WMD, and had to make a tough call, all the while having the memory of 9/11 still fresh in his mind. I do think the Bush admin “sexed up” the evidence a bit when they presented it to the UN, but I also think they did it because they truly believed Hussein had those weapons, but some countries were demanding nothing less than a photo of Saddam Hussein with a nuclear warhead in his lap. Be that as it may, as I have already stated, my support for this war has very little to do with WMD. As old fashioned as it sounds, I’m in it for freedom. Simple as that.
MI
my support for this war has very little to do with WMD. As old fashioned as it sounds, I’m in it for freedom. Simple as that.
that’s why I supported the war as well. for the record, I kind of mirror Andrew Sullivan’s thinking on the war as its unfolded, only I’ve gone to the point of actually wanting to end it, I’m pretty sure he’s still on board for the long hall.
the kicker is, imo, realizing that as long as these guys were in charge, freedom was never going to come to Iraq. Looking back, the mess we (and the Iraqis)are in should have been foreseen, and as it turns out, by many it was.
The war was conducted arrogantly, naively, undermanned and on the cheap. A popular slogan from war supporters is “freedom isn’t free”. This is something I don’t think the Bush admin understood, and I think it’s something they still don’t understand.
But at least you and I are having a civil conversation about it now, so props to us! that’s somethin’
MI
one final jab here, in April, 57% (I think it’s even higher now) of Americans believed President Bush deliberately misled on the claims of WMD’s. My point being that it’s not just a bunch of left wing Bush haters who think the President has been less-than-honest, it’s over half the freaking country.
And they, like me, and Cindy Sheehan for God’s sake, can have their opinions about this President and this war, and not have it be some left wing driven conspiracy. And for that matter, those opinions aren’t automatically invalidated when the left wing crazies do become involved. There’s a lot of that going around too, from both sides, using the extremes to paint the norm. Although, of course, I think the right does it way more than the left hehe.
By the way, I’m in Michigan (hence the MI), so I have much love for my brothers and sisters next door!
MisterPundit
Well, I don’t have nearly as fatalistic a view as you do, but yes, the road to victory has not been as easy as it might have been. Hindsight is 20-20 though, and it’s impossible to say if anyone else would have done it better, or worse, at the time. I have zero doubt that the Iraqi/Coalition forces will eventually come out on top in the end.
As for those predictions… many people predicted the war in Afghanistan would be a disaster. The same people predicted that the US would be fighting Saddam’s Fedajeen in the streets of Baghdad for months before they could topple the regime. When US tanks rolled into Baghdad, those people were stunned. Those same people are now crowing and giving each other high-fives because finally, one of their predictions are somewhat panning out. Unfortunately, the downside to eternal fatalism is that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if those troops are defeated it will not be on the battlefield, it will be here at home.
MisterPundit
That doesn’t mean he misled them. Perceptions are created, for the most part, by the media. In time, the truth will come out in all it’s magnificent glory. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to eat crow, that’s for sure.
Pb
Jeff G,
To be more clear: I wouldn’t hold up your post alone as an example of slander or ad-hominems against Cindy; your critique is fairly careful about not doing that, which I appreciate, as far as that goes. I would say that you reserved most of your vitriol for Cindy’s supporters. However, some of your commenters are another story, and apart from that you are part and parcel of the current defense of the indefensible.
The context here is that of Erick’s original post (which, as I’ve mentioned, was far more offensive above and beyond the beloved “media whore”/”whore” snippet), John’s defense of it, and your post which furthers that defense. Also, as I’ve mentioned, look at the comments that your post has garnered; (I’m sure you already have, but…) apparently lunatics on the right who confuse dissent with treason love your post.
Of course, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ is a continuum, and using some fringe element to tar one entire side or another doesn’t really help anyone. That’s why I wouldn’t mischaracterize everyone on the right as ‘wingnuts’, or blame you for a couple of people who feel the need to spew hatred in your blog. That’s also why I’ll stand up for Cindy when I see someone trying to turn this into a personal attack, or when I see someone defending such behavior. And that is where your post–albeit indirectly–lies: in mounting a defense that benefits someone making such attacks. I’ll gladly discuss policy with you, but personal attacks deserve no such support, nor do the people making them.
So I’d feel better about it if you did personally decry such behavior. I already have, but I’ll state here clearly: any person making crude personal attacks against anyone else does not represent me in any capacity, and I condemn such behavior. In my opinion, this includes (but is not limited to) all of: Erick’s original comments about Cindy, any threats made against Erick, and some of the comments about Cindy that your post has garnered.
Cheers!
Boronx
I love the “Sheehan is a pawn of the Left” line. It’s completely divorced from reality. The Left is scrambling madly to catch up with her.
Forgive my butting in on MI and MrPundit’s love fest, but what good is a war for freedom that begins by undermining Democracy at home and killing thousands upon thousands of the very people you are trying to free?
Unfortunately, the downside to eternal fatalism is that it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, because if those troops are defeated it will not be on the battlefield, it will be here at home.
Nice paranoid fantasy you’ve constructed. Our troops aren’t going to be defeated *anywhere*. The only question is whether they are going to be victorious.
It’s really quite simple: What are the objectives we can achieve, and how much do are they going to cost? If any objectives are worth the cost, lets do it, if not, there’s no point in spending billions getting our troops killed 3 by 3.
This is a discussion that has to happen honestly, and it has to bring in the American people. Before the war the discussion was swamped with lies, and now it’s hardly being discussed at all.
Until that changes, there’s no victory in sight.
Bob
It seems that whenever a figure appears that is, for lack of a better term, “on the left,” John Cole gets personal. That mean-spiritedness seems lacking when Cole comments on most right-wing figures. I think this is a feature of reactionary politics here in the USA. I think there will always be personal attacks back and forth, I think most of the administration is a criminal cabal, but it seems necessary for reactionaries to react, to personally destroy those people who say things that bother them. (Bolton is the personification of this.)
It doesn’t matter what Sheehan’s son believed, what her in-laws believe. She owns her grief, and her grief is a political tool against this war. A media stunt? Bring it on.
Constantine
You know, there is a certain columnist visited my city whose writings I found simply inane in a self-consciously “I’m a flaky social conservative!” way… sort of a “movement conservative” Erma Bombeck. That was her shtick, and it attracted a following. Her husband was in the ministry, not a well-paying job, and a friend of mine asked me what I though of her. I wanted to use similar terms for her that someone attracted a lot of ire for calling Sheehan recently, but I just couldn’t bring myself to it. It was simply inappropriate. So, honestly, I was sort of surprised some writers had no such qualms when writing about Sheehan.
And let’s face the facts– this never would be happening were it not for the fact that Bush insists on creating a month-long photo-op in Crawford every August. Will this whole thing fade away when the month is over? Yes, because Bush is going to leave Texas and go back to Washington at that time. In fact, this entire circus would end right now if Bush simply left his “ranch” and got back to work.
Is John Cole saying that Sheehan is unworthy of news coverage and would instead prefer to see more footage of Bush clearing brush, or does he want to hear of more shark attacks? Of the three stories, Sheehan’s is the most important, and hers is the most worthy of coverage. Her detractors are really in no moral position to criticize her, particularly given their moral failures when it came to their position on the war.
Until Cole starts referring to the entire White House staff as “media pimps” for pimping Bush out to the press in Crawford and his faux town meetings, Cole’s criticism of a genuine media event rings pretty hollow.
=0=
I don’t get it.
1) Right or wrong, political protest is a fundamental right in our nation.
2) I don’t get the protienwisdom post. Your party controls everything, and you’re still bitching about the pomo-linguistic overlords? Come on.
3) Admit it. You just don’t like the fact that a camera friendly face doesn’t like the war. Fine. Go watch Coulter for a while.
MisterPundit
See you own point number 1 for the answer to point number 2.
LOL. Do people really believe this crap? Apparently, yes.
Defense Guy
Absolutely. She has every right to do what she is doing.
Losing elections does not give you a victim status. You, as an individual, and in groups are still exactly the same as the rest of us. This is a distraction, as it in no way affects the actions of either Mrs. Sheehan or the US government.
You are guessing. The tactics being used in this case are allowed to be discussed by anyone. If there are lies being told, such as ‘this question has not been answered’, then not only do we have a right to discuss it, we have a moral obligation to point out the lie. It’s not all that hard, but dishonesty is ruling this whole ‘issue’.
Defense Guy
As an aside. I heard the song ‘Dirty Laundry’ on the radio yesterday, and it just made me think of this issue. Also, that songs just rocks.
How many protesters are there exactly, besides the ‘star’ that is?
dano347
MisterPundit Says:
I didn’t intend to launch into full rant mode there, but what set me off was the pawn comment, because it’s noting more than a talking point, it doesn’t mean anything
Okay MI, that was a surprisingly non-confrontational reply. You just made me feel like a damn bully. My temper is also on a short fuse these days. It is so frustrating to be so angry at people I agree with on so many issues, yet this one issue is ripping us apart. If this keeps up, we’re all going to end up being losers. It saddens me.
Anyway, I certainly don’t think that all leftwingers are using Sheehan for political purposes, but some clearly are (see my link above). How representative this type of behaviour really is among the left, I can’t say.
August 14th, 2005 at 1:51 am
Speaking of pawns; ever heard of Terry Schiavo? You guys “lowered the bar” right down to the ground with that example. To hear you guys bleat on like this is really pathetic.
dano347
MisterPundit Says:
57% (I think it’s even higher now) of Americans believed President Bush deliberately misled on the claims of WMD’s
That doesn’t mean he misled them. Perceptions are created, for the most part, by the media. In time, the truth will come out in all it’s magnificent glory. Whatever the outcome, someone is going to eat crow, that’s for sure.
August 14th, 2005 at 5:39 am
I hope you kept your mom’s recipe book; do they sell “Crow Helper? You should definitely research it before the mid-term elections get here!
dano347
DougJ Says:
“Something big will happen and this will fade away, just like every other August “scandal”.”
You said it, Stormy. Something big and more important than this—possibly a break in the Holloway case or something of that sort—will come along and blow this clown show off the front pages. It’s a shame this much coverage has been spent on this sideshow already, but I’m afraid that’s the way of our unserious media these days.
August 13th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
A break in the Holloway case, huh big-thinker? Better hope for more shark attacks, too!
Speaking of sharks, I expect Bush to do something spectacularly boneheaded in the next few days (like the pretzel incident, falling off the Segway, running into a police officer on a bike, etc.) to try and temporarily distract attention from the coming indictments. A last-ditch “jump the shark” effort to shore up his crumbling base, perhaps he’ll try to jump a ranch ravine “Dukes-of-Hazard” style, to try and get all the Nascar folks safely back in the fold (with George riding shotgun next to a stunt-driver, of course).
Stormy70
The coming indictments?
MisterPundit
Yes! After being promised “crow” for the last god-knows-how-many elections, I am dying to finally taste it.
AlphaOmega
AlphaOmega
Read
B. Ross
Bush ignored Clinton’s warnings about Al-Qaeda. After Al-Qaeda attacked us, Bush invaded the wrong country, Iraq, because he wanted to humiliate his own father more than he wanted to catch Osama (who he still hasn’t caught). Bush has harmed the environment, deliberately, in many ways. He has led this country, deliberately, into moral AND fiscal bankruptcy.
If we don’t miss the peace-and-prosperity Clinton years, and are enamored of the war-and-poverty Dirty Bush years, then there’s something really wrong with US.
B. Ross
PS. And this is what Cindy Sheehan is pissed off about, seeing as these brazen lies and sheer stupidities led to the death of her son.
I get it. Why don’t you?