Matt Stinson touches on something that has developed over the past few days regarding Cindy Sheehan- namely, that even questioning her statements is part of a smear.
This is, nothing new, of course, and something that Jeff Goldstein has talked about at length. For more evidence, look at the comments of this Sebastian Holsclaw post, and the comments to this post. Simply quoting Cindy Sheehan amounts to a smear, it seems.
None of this mitigates the blunder by the WH by not just simply meeting with her immediately and being done with the whole ordeal, but it is interesting that in certain quarters it is now deemed impermissible, even ‘mean,’ to examine the comments of Cindy Sheehan.
More here.
Mike S
For over three years now anyone who was against the war has been accused of being anti-American. Anybody who questioned the prosecution of the war was anti-troops and anybody who has called Bush out on his numerous faults has been said to hate America.
You tell me which is worse.
Blue Neponset
I would use the word irrelevant instead of mean.
As many on the Right have pointed out Cindy Sheehan is just an ordinary citizen and her opinions are her own and nothing more. The only exception to that, IMO, is her opinion about her son’s death. I still believe ‘Casey Sheehan died for his country’ is not an acceptable answer to her question.
Also, wow many more reasons do you need to dismiss Ms. Sheehan’s opinions? I think we have gotten a new reason to dismiss her each day this issue has been discussed.
BinkyBoy
John, its not so much that quoting Ms. Sheehan is an “attack” on her, its the motivation behind such quoting. The pattern has been clear to those outside of the Republican toe lickers for a long time, the first thing to do to an opponent of any sort is to marginalize them. This is done through smears and unending questioning of their motivations, rather than address the issues that the person brings up. Kerry wins a debate, suddenly he shot himself to get a Purple Heart. Michael Moore comes out with F9/11, suddenly he’s a fat twinky eatting freak that “lies”. Al Franken hates little girls and boys and steals their milk money.
Just look at the Iraqi woman brought into Crawford to “oppose” Ms. Sheehan. Such fakery in an attempt not to address Ms. Sheehan’s questions, but to marginalize her and make her seem that she doesn’t care about Iraqi women, when that has nothing to do with Ms. Sheehan’s questions.
Its a continually reoccuring pattern of smear and attack by the pundits that actually matter. The Rush’s, the Hannity’s, the O’Reilly’s. Those are the ones that the voters hear on a regular basis, and their dehumanization and marginalization of their enemies has become a disgusting habitual trait that should be questioned and challenged by moderates.
Steve
To some extent, John’s post relies on the old bugaboo of using blog comments to make its point. However, I read the Crooked Timber post, and the Hitchens article it labels a “smear,” and I have to admit that the Hitchens article seemed fair to me, although the validity of the oft-cited “Israel” quote is now being called into question.
I think, yeah, it’s an overreaction by some which derives from the fact that a lot of right-wingers actually DO engage in smears of Cindy Sheehan. To the extent John is trying to play referee here and determine what is fair comment and what is unfair, I think I agree with where he draws the line. The overall point, though, is that many Republicans are being totally clueless about how their attacks are perceived. If you make the debate about the war, there’s a case to be stated (I guess); if you make the debate about Cindy Sheehan, it’s an uphill fight that you should be looking to avoid in the first place.
hilzoy
On the ObWi thread, I think what most people objected to was Sebastian’s apparent assumptions about the motivations of people who support Cindy Sheehan. Fwiw.
J. Michael Neal
Actually, I agree with John. Some people, though certainly not all of them, who are defending Cindy Sheehan are casually lumping legitimate criticisms in with the illegitimate ones and calling them all smears. I disagree with this approach, and wish it wasn’t happening.
You know what, though? Exactly this sort of thing is standard procedure for a lot of the administrations supporters. I haven’t been reading Balloon Juice long enough to know if, or to what extent, John has been guilty of it, so I’ll leave him out of this particular criticism. However, for a lot of people on his side of the aisle, it’s a case of “You reap what you sow.” If they want we to feel sympathetic to their complaints, they need to stop doing the same thing, or supporting those who do.
Defense Guy
Two votes for the other guys do it too, only worse and one for ‘irrelevant’.
My own vote is, it is wrong to characterize a dissenting opinion limited to her actual speech, as a smear on her. In fact, it’s a lie.
Joe Albanese
Cole says,
Yeah. In SOME QUARTERS Michael Moore and all of his “ilk” should be deported out of the country (Rush Limbaugh). So, what is the point John, that there are people that will say and do absurd things on both sides of the argument. I think its really silly to pull out some quotes out here on the blogsphere and then use that to hammer all of those supporting a positon. Kinda like guilt by association.
Once again I think you are hung up on this “unassailable” thing that make you so unreasonable on this issue. Its not that her positions (opposing the war) should be unassailable but that as a person that has actually been impacted by the war very dirctly, her bona fides for speaking out should be unassailable. That she should not be tarred, like all others that oppose the war, as a traitor, or not supporting our troops. Alas though the left was wrong. There is NOTHING that stops the right wing from attacking her personally. Did anyone catch Horowitz on that MSNBC show with Ronald Reagan jr? He heaped upon her such an attack it was disgusting. Simply disgusting.
Mike S
In other words, “who cares what we do, as long as we can attack you for what you do?”
Greg
The White House bungled it, but not by not meeting with her. Let’s be realistic. No president can establish a precedent that any crackpot demanding an audience receives one. That Sheehan has any traction at all, such as it is, is indicative of the larger problem – the president’s credibility on Iraq planning isn’t what it should be and that should be his focus. Unfortunately, his base isn’t particularly interested in it.
Otto Man
Just to pre-empt the inevitable claims that this never happened.
Otto Man
DG, I’ll vote for that too.
The smears against her — like Malkin’s insipid claim that her son would’ve disapproved, or all this crap about her divorce — are totally off-base. But any disagreement with her statements is completely fair game.
Hell, I support her protest, but I think her comments about the war in Afghanistan are wildly naive.
Defense Guy
MIke S
Whatever. If you feel the need to continously excuse bad behavior by those you agree with by pointing out bad behavior of those you don’t, then go with it.
Do you really take issue with my vote? If not, then we agree. Dissent of speech is entirely acceptable and is not limited by who does the speaking or the dissenting. Attacking the character of the speaker, is more often than not, a cheap shot meant to deflect from the speech.
Defense Guy
Otto Man
Glad to hear it. I support her right to protest, but happen to disagree with her on just about everything. I also hope she realizes that some of her speech is going to be used in ways that she can not control.
Mike S
I do agree with that statement. My larger point has to do with the new outrage at something that has been going on for years yet received little to no criticism. When the same thing has been happening to admin critics for years, only far more vitriolic, it’s hard to have any sympathy for the people it’s happening to now.
John Cole
Please embed your links, Otto.
Otto Man
My apologies. Thanks for cleaning it up.
Defense Guy
Mike S
Do you want the United States, and the coalition, to win the war in Iraq?
BinkyBoy
DG:
What constitutes winning?
Will it be winning if the entire region falls apart to civil war after removal of the majority of troops?
Will it be winning if Iraq becomes a haven for terrorists and those with anti-american sentiment?
Will it be winning if America controls the flow of oil?
Will it be winning if Iran and Iraq forge a new Sumaria and forces Sharia law on the rest of the ME?
How can an illegal invasion and occupation ever end up in the Win catagory for America as a whole?
John S.
Perhaps you should watch the classic 80s movie Wargames.
The computer drew the proper analogy in that movie: War is like a game of tic-tac-toe. When played properly, there are no winners.
Also, how exactly would you define the circumstances that would constitute “winning the war in Iraq”?
Defense Guy
BinkyBoy & John S.
I’ll mark you both down as ‘need more information’ charitably.
Otto Man
No, seriously, DG — what constitutes “winning” in your mind? I’d honestly like to know.
Right now, I feel like I’m at my first cricket game. I’m trying to root for the home team, but I’m having a real hard time understanding what they’re trying to accomplish.
I mean this seriously. What constitutes a win?
Mike S
I was four square against this war before it started, and made my case rationally and respectfully. When the war started I was fully supportive and wanted us to win. When the admin was showing itself unwilling to do what was neccessary to win I made that case as well. I have always been 100% behind the troops, have sent numerous care packages that included home made items that were then given to wounded troops and castigated any and all people on my side who did attack the troops. I have been called “anti American” “anti Troops” “America Hating” and every other name in the book.
Do I want us to win? Yes, absolutely. However I believe it has been so badly bungled by the admin and civilian leadership, including Rumsfeld and the people in the “green zone,” that our chances are next to none. I have vacilated between leaving the troops there to finish and bring them home. After talking to many people who have lived and worked in the middle east, both civilian and governmental, I am leaning toward bringing them home.
John S.
DefenseGuy
I’ll mark you down as ‘incapable of responding’ uncharitably.
Mike
“BinkyBoy Says:
DG:
How can an illegal invasion and occupation ever end up in the Win catagory for America as a whole?”
So then, since your opinion is that the war is illegal, does that mean you’re hoping for a loss? If not, then what are you hoping for?
docG
Cindy Sheehan is a self-inflating strawman. The United States internal political situation will require us to “declare victory and go home” regarding Iraq. Iraq will piddle around with a Constitution and democracy for a short while, a civil war will occur, then a strong man, ala Hussein will seize control of a fractured Iraq and the circle of life in the Mideast will once again stop in a giant pile of shit. I miss the mark as often as anyone, but this train is coming full tilt, with horns and lights in working order.
Defense Guy
This, in addition to everything else you said would seem to indicate that those calling you ‘anti-American’ or ‘unpatriotic’ were wrong. I would also like to note that you actually answered the question without need for more information, so they were seemingly VERY wrong.
What constitutes a win?
I would say a cessation of violence by our enemy in country coupled with the replacement of the former dictatorship with a free Iraq based on a representitive constitution created by Iraqis. I might be willing to concede that the Iraqi’s themselves will have to ensure the cessation of violence and our presence might not be required.
Pretty much the same things that constituted a win in all our other wars, even the ones we lost.
Mike S
By the way Defence Guy. You proved my point rather effectively by framing my opposition to this admin as a question of whether I want us to win
Mike S
Although to be fair I have seen a small minority of anti war people say they want us to lose. That is a small minority though.
KC
Jeez, I think it’s so interesting that people are going wild over this woman. She’s news now, but probably won’t be for long. It just seems that at the heart of it is the fact that someone with an anti-war position is getting press coverage, is getting a platform. Honestly, I don’t see anything wrong with that. Rush, Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, you name ’em, all have a platform, all have a voice, and get heard everyday saying the stupidest and vilest of things. That’s the way things are.
I don’t agree with Sheehan on everything, probably most of what she says. I noted yesterday in the comments that I thought what she said on Hardball about invading Afghanistan was wrong. She claimed we should have gone after al Queda, and not the country of Afghanistan. Obviously, this is problematic since Afghanistan was harboring al Queda, but she’s got a right to say things like it nevertheless. More to the point, it seems like I’ve seen a lot of people question her freely, including you John. Hell, her divorce is public!
Bottom line is that she’s here to protest, has a platform, has a voice, and is now pushing an anti-war element to the debate about Iraq forward. Oh well. Maybe it’s a good thing. As for people who say you shouldn’t discuss her, examine her words, too bad for them. Take one look at the news and you’ll see they’ve already lost. She’s being discussed, everyday, all the time, over and over, and what she says and stands for is at the front of those discussions now.
BinkyBoy
I would like for us to escape Iraq with the fewest amounts of casualties and with something of a grudging respect by the Iraqi government, along with the threat that they won’t be happy if we have to come back.
Will that be consistant with winning or losing? I think the terms themselves weaken the argument and somehow dictate that someone somewhere better be keeping score.
We’ve lost so much already, there will be no glorious 80 yard touchdown pass in the rain to drag us out of the muck of our hideous creation. We’ve lost the respect of the world, we’ve lost billions of dollars and no matter what we do the Iraqi’s will have to figure things out for themselves in the end. Why didn’t we just leave after we captured Saddam, then? In terms of general losses we’d be way ahead of where we are now, and I’m not so sure the Iraqi’s wouldn’t be as well.
Defense Guy
Mike S
I was just curious, it seems like a fair question. I don’t believe it should have anything to do with politics or the support of a particular administration. You were able to answer it easily. Others not so much.
Thanks.
Otto Man
Thanks for answering, DG. Boy, I’d love to see that happen, but everything I’m seeing about the region makes me think that the next step is either civil war or a new Islamic theocracy aligned with Iran.
Like someone else said above, I was wholly against the war from the start — I didn’t think we should take our eyes off Bin Laden and I didn’t believe the WMD hype — but once we got in, I hoped they’d pull it off. But I’ve only seen incompetence from this administration, especially Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. They’re been trying to fight this on the cheap and it’s showing.
A smarter plan for the war — one that listened to people like Shinseki and Lindsey about the troop needs and costs, one that got international support (not for PR value, but for real troop commitment on the ground, especially in the postwar phase), and one that didn’t rely on the lies of Ahmed Chalabi — could’ve prevented the mess we’re in now.
Deoxy
Actually, to a VERY limited extent, I think it’s even OK to mention her husband is divorcing her, and here’s why:
She is claiming to represent a LOT of people – families of those whose children have been killed among them. That her OWN family doesn’t even stand with her shows that supposed representation to be, erm, very much inflated (that’s the polite version).
Other than RELEVANT points like that, yes, most other stuff about her life is smear, but actually quoting her own words (unless taken out of context to make it sound like she’s saying something she’s not) is NOT a smear.
jg
You took thats as ‘you do it so we can too’?
The point was clearly that its absurd to hear someone on the right bitch about it since its part of the rights election strategy. Not that its the right thing to do. Do you miss the point on purpose? I’m been reading your posts for a while now and you aren’t dumb. You can’t have thought it was a two wrongs make a right argument.
Section9
Well, meanwhile, back at Camp Casey, Sheehan’s denials on Anderson Cooper that she ever made the “War for Israel” comment in a letter to ABC News have since been brought into question.
ABC News today apparently confirmed that, yes, the letter indicating that the Joooos Did It did come from Cindy Sheehan. Sheehan says she wrote the letter but claims that it has been tampered with, according to ABC (hat tip: Rich Lowry over at NRO’s “Corner”).
Well, if you don’t mind, that reminds me of the time I went to the Code Pink rally and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion broke out.
ppGaz
However, on these very pages, criticism was leveled at her for “statements” she never made. For example, that she said that her son “died for Israel.” She clearly, and to my satisfaction, refuted the claim that she had said or written any such thing.
However, the bottom line here is that the dishonest right, which is well represented here, holds Ms. Sheehan’s pronouncements to a higher standard than the one to which they hold the president or the government.
As I said yesterday, and will continue to say: Under what authority, born of a track record of being right, does anyone in the administration claim to have the standing to criticize the views of any citizen?
Spend as much time parsing and comparing and contrasting the press releases and public utterances of this gang of potatoheads with reality, as you do yelping over the utterances of a ditzy middle aged mother from California, and I’ll be convinced that you have something to say. Because otherwise, AFAIC, you don’t.
For clarity, “you” here is general and refers to noone in particular.
Defense Guy
And that fact that ABC refutes this by actually having the letter in which she does this. Now her claim is that someone must have tampered with it. What do you make of it?
jg
She might be lying but then you’d have to believe that only people on the left would forge something. :-)
Of course we know thats not true since the Whitewater documents that got the special prosecutor on Clinton were forgeries or so I read.
ppGaz
I have no reason to doubt her. She says that she did not say or write the comment, and clearly disavowed the statement itself. She does not believe her son “died for Israel.”
AFAIC, that case is closed. The copy of the correspondence containing the verbiage was not sent by her, it was sent by someone else. It could easily have been edited. However, that’s all moot. Apparently she does not, in fact, believe that the young man “died for Israel.”
For my money, I wouldn’t care if she did say it. Americans have been expected to go along with any policy toward Israel for the last 50 years, and any criticism of any pro-Israel policy or action is always greeted by the “AS” word, which is pure bullshit. I don’t care if Israel is semitic, or populated by green frogs, any policy or action toward that country must stand on its own merits, or fail on them. The fact that Israelis go around insisting that “God wants them to ” does not endear them to me. I have no evidence that God gives a flying you know what about them.
Ken Hahn
I don’t believe that Bush meeting with Sheehan would have defused the situation. She would have emerged dissatisfied and just as irrational as she is now. The media would have jumped on anything she claimed about Bush changing from the first meeting. The campout would contine along with the wall to wall coverage.
Cindy Sheehan isn’t the problem. The establishment media needs a distraction. Anything to avoid covering Air America’s finances or seriously looking into the Able Danger story. Cindy Sheehan is heaven sent. All Cindy, all the time, is good background noise for sweeping any important news under the rug.
Anyone who questions Sheehan’s stories or her friends will be attacked as mean and uncaring of a mother’s grief. Facts be damned, we need a distraction here. The robots of the left will, of course echo the New York Times line. A mother who lost a son in Clinton’s Bosnia adventure might get a one paragraph story in her local paper. Sheehan gets the whole power of the media elite.
I hope Cindy’s “friends” will start ignoring her soon so she can come to terms with her loss and get on with her life, but until the story is milked for its maximum value they will be there urging her on. Sheehan’s supporters love rubbing salt in her wounds so the point out how mean Bush is for making her miserable.
Bush cannot meet with her now because there would be a parade of mothers, fathers, third cousins and others, who would one by one camp out and demand a personal meeting which would do nothing to satisfy them. Let’s leave Ms. Sheehan alone and try to find some real news.
DougJ
Enough with the Sheehan already.
Mike S
Ah yes. That Air America story is of vital national importance. All those listeners dying every day, billions spent and no end in sight.
Damn that librul media.
Steve
How many American mothers, exactly, lost their sons in that “adventure”?
Mike S
I completely missed that. Do these fools even read recent history? It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Otto Man
What would the headline be? “Mother Claims Son Killed in a War with No KIA”?
Otto Man
You must’ve missed the other thread with people insisting that the Nazis were really socialists, only Italians could be fascists, and all the professional historians they’d never read were wrong about WWII internment.
Bush was right. “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
jg
Don’t go confusing the issue with facts and gorilla dust.
jahyarain
they’ve been seperated almost since their son died. please, get your info from someone other than junkies and warmongers. thank you and goodnight
Mike
“Mike S Says:
“Ah yes. That Air America story is of vital national importance. All those listeners dying every day, billions spent and no end in sight.
Damn that librul media.”
That’s not the point. The point is that the Air America story is just as important, I think more so actually than much of the stuff running around as news right now. As important as Iraq? Of course not. As important as some anti-Bush dingbat spouting off as the new darling child of the Left, you bet. The only difference between this lady and the rest of the anti-war crowd is that she lost a son who was a patriot. Which is exactly why they have latched onto her. They feel she gives them instant “creds” with much of America.
I’ll tell you what. How about the news media and the Leftists give the Air America Story the same amount of coverage and outrage as they did the Rush Limbaugh Drug story, how’s that for balance?
Rick
Mike,
You’re quite an optimist if you think our objective media will fall for that “just the facts” scam. Only advances the Rovian world domination plan, it would.
Cordially…
Rocky Smith
I haven’t seen a single story on the “Air America” theives. This story warrants no coverage at all? If it was Limbaugh’s or Hannity’s network I bet you’d hear quite a bit more about it. But then those guys are successful enough not to steal to pay the bills. I doubt Air America will ever get there.
Capt Vee
A win in the war would be the creation and sustaining of the first modern Arab democracy in the Middle East. That at least would be the win scenario in this aspect of the conflict.
Wins in future areas of conflict would be the Iraq example contributing to the ousting of various autocratic regimes over a period of time, like those in Iran and Syria (and even the autocratic tendencies of “allies” like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine). Furthermore a demonstration that being modern, democratic, Arab and Muslim are all possible with Iraq being the model, giving impetus to a rising belief among the Muslims of the Middle East that they can be Muslims without the iron rule of the Mullahs and with a modern functioning society where the leaders are accountable to their citizenry.
All of this would represent huge wins in the war on terror by drying up the sources the radical fringes of Muslim extremism (which will continue to exist for a long time to come) feeds upon to carry out their mayhem.
There are big wins possible here, it simply remains to be seen whether it can be pulled off. The biggest mistake from both sides of the argument (and maybe the administrations as well) was assuming this would be easy. We were always underdogs going into this, but we were forced to try something after September 11. It might not have been the best idea, but the only alternative was to sit back and put up with the occassional major terrorist attack every five years or so (if we’re lucky). We could either try and win or surrender and hope for the best. Bush decided to pursue a win strategy. We’re still the underdogs on this one, I think, but winning is still possible.
One thing is sure, this situation will remain with us long after Bush is out of office, so personalizing this as Bush’s war does little to illuminate what the future will bring. Someone else is going to have to fight this thing eventually, what they will do will be just as important.