Our Noble Cause
Tom Tomorrow's right on it today:
I have no doubt that Cindy Sheehan--who has paid the biggest price a parent can pay--will continue to be attacked by people who think they're doing all they can by putting ribbon magnets on their SUVs. (And isn't that ultimately the pefect metaphor for this war and its supporters? Think about it: it's a magnet. Peel it off and it's as if it was never there. You can support the troops and not even risk the slightest damage to the finish of your car. That's real commitment.)
Here it is in Sheehan's own words:
People have asked what it is I want to say to President Bush. Well, my message is a simple one. He’s said that my son -- and the other children we’ve lost -- died for a noble cause. I want to find out what that noble cause is. And I want to ask him: “If it’s such a noble cause, have you asked your daughters to enlist? Have you encouraged them to go take the place of soldiers who are on their third tour of duty?” I also want him to stop using my son’s name to justify the war. The idea that we have to “complete the mission” in Iraq to honor Casey’s sacrifice is, to me, a sacrilege to my son’s name. Besides, does the president any longer even know what “the mission” really is over there?Casey knew that the war was wrong from the beginning. But he felt it was his duty to go, that his buddies were going, and that he had no choice. The people who send our young, honorable, brave soldiers to die in this war, have no skin in the game. They don’t have any loved ones in harm’s way. As for people like O’Reilly and Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and all the others who are attacking me and parroting the administration line that we must complete the mission there -- they don’t have one thing at stake. They don’t suffer through sleepless nights worrying about their loved ones
Before this all started, I used to think that one person couldn’t make a difference... but now I see that one person who has the backing and support of millions of people can make a huge difference.
That’s why I’m going to be out here until one of three things happens: It’s August 31st and the president’s vacation ends and he leaves Crawford. They take me away in a squad car. Or he finally agrees to speak with me.
If he does, he’d better be prepared for me to hold his feet to the fire. If he starts talking about freedom and democracy -- or about how the war in Iraq is protecting America -- I’m not going to let him get away with it.
Like I said, this is George Bush’s accountability moment.
Here's some more of Cindy's own words: 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.
As you can see, she's a racist, among other things; but as she's a mom, the most holiest of holy creatures, we should overlook that.
Richard Bennett at August 14, 2005 1:53 PM
I won't comment on the morality of her constant diatribes - she's entitled to say whatever she wants. But as the many comments from her family (and husband) have shown, she's gone off the deep end, and they want no part of the freak show.
And that's just what this is becoming, a freak show of enhanced martrydom. She already met the President many months ago, and announced herself satisfied. But no, now she's changed her mind, it's not enough! And because she's a mother, who lost her son - how dare anyone criticize her motives, how dare anyone raise questions regarding her grief?
Reasonable people can disagree about the war, and make honest arguments about it. For those who are against the war, this does them no favors, and the many enablers who are pushing her further into her passions will only succeed in turning away people who might be persuaded otherwise.
Dmac at August 14, 2005 3:16 PM
I am sad to say that though Ms. Sheehan is not alone in her grief, her theatrics have diminished the attention others should have for their sacrifice, as the media homes in on her circus.
Anyone who can count battle flags should know that unpopular causes outnumber the popular ones in American military action - but the public has no idea... they only know what is going on this week.
Co-workers of mine are in Iraq today. Nobody tells their story - of building roads, bridges, schools and power-disribution centers, only to be attacked by people eager to set up their own Middle-Eastern kingdom of privilege and terror, to be the New Hussein.
Radwaste at August 14, 2005 4:47 PM
Some of us with those silly little magnets on our cars are sincerely working to support our troops. Yes, I have, or had until it came off somewhere, one of those ribbons on my car. I also have been taking care of my 41-year-old sister's 10-year-old son; I have been emailing, letter-writing, mailing care packages, talking with her lawyer, dealing with the company who is renting out her house while she's gone, etc.
Somehow, that little magnet is a reminder for me of my sister and all of the others over there...and every time I see another magnet I think, maybe the people in that car are doing the same for someone they love.
Claire at August 14, 2005 6:17 PM
Claire, I think you're missing something -- the problem was with the people who drive giant gas-guzzlers, then tag them with the ribbon. The obvious thought comes to mind: "Yo, dude...if you really want to support our troops, stop with the lip-service and buy a Prius." I've also sent care packages and letters. I'm very grateful not only to the service people in Iraq but to cops and firemen and women, and anybody who risks their life on behalf of the rest of us. If more people tried to think of servicepeople over there as family members, maybe there'd be more outrage that we're there at all. And, as I've said before, I say that as somebody who is not a dove, but also not for going to war willynilly.
Amy Alkon at August 14, 2005 9:23 PM
Why can't she just get an answer about why we are there? Simple- there is no rational answer or explanation why we are over there. No WMD's, no threat to America. It was a clusterfuck from day 1, as evidenced clearly from the poor planning and implementation.
Richard- she is not a racist. She is drowning in grief.
Close your eyes for a few minutes and think about this, from HER perspective: Everything she and her son were told about why this war is being fought turns out to be false. Her son dies a violent death, which is impossible to reconcile because he is buried as a hero, but the threat to America was imaginary. Meanwhile she sees war profiteers prosper from this conflict, politicians who shoulder no personal sacrifice use this conflict for their own political agenda, oil companies and foreign "allies" reap additional $billions$ weekly, and a commander in chief who jokes "Nope- no WMD's found here" at a black tie dinner.
How exactly do you want her to cope with this grief? It may not fit into your idea of patriotic sacrifice, and she may very well have gone off the deep end, but she sure isn't being thrown any life preservers either.
Next put her in a Burka and read the future of Iraq.
And damnit Amy- this war is not about SUV's. Petroleum goes into a million services and products. Energy is a flowing commodity, with a supply and demand discipline. But production and consumption rise at a steady pace while uncertainty fluctuates. This war is about those who control the real estate where that commodity is placed, and the perception of the commodities availability, but not those who purchase it. Check out this graph of petroleum pricing, and compare it to the steady increase of consumption...
www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Note how consumption rises steadily, while prices (and profit) skyrocket with instability.
eric at August 14, 2005 10:47 PM
...the problem was with the people who drive giant gas-guzzlers...
Wrong, the problem is the terrorists, not the motorists or even the people ride the biggest gas-guzzlers on the planet, airplanes.
...the threat to America was imaginary...
If only.
Richard Bennett at August 15, 2005 2:54 AM
If you take a look at her son's military records, you'll find that he had already performed his required service in Iraq, and was eligible to be discharged honorably.
But he chose not only to re - enlist, but to do another tour of duty in a hostile fire zone in Iraq. There were no recruiters telling him stories, there was no pressure put on him by anyone he knew, either in the military or in his family (no doubt his mother had something to say about it, but she's not talking about this little discordant note).
So a full - grown adult, who had already seen intense action in Iraq, chose to go and do it all over again, voluntarily. This is the important issue that's not being covered or discussed, because it doesn't fit with the easy plotline of those who are using it for their own advantage. Grey areas are so difficult to incorporate into one's cognitive world, aren't they?
Dmac at August 15, 2005 7:09 AM
> As you can see, she's a racist,
Personally I don't see that at all. It's perfectly true, isn't it, that Israel was the only country Saddam Hussein's regime credibly threatened. Exactly WHAT race do you think is denigrated by pointing that simple fact out?
Stu "El Inglés" Harris at August 15, 2005 8:46 AM
Ms. Sheehan's main support and talking points are now coming from an organization called the Crawford Peace House, a known anti - Semitic organization.
Somehow, I don't think they have a sense of the ironic concerning their group's name.
Dmac at August 15, 2005 9:11 AM
I'm not familiar with the Crawford Peace House, but just want to say that speaking out against policies of the Israeli government does not make one anti-Semitic, just as criticizing policies of the current U.S. administration does not make one an anti-American traitor. Hell, I'm Jewish and I disagree strongly with the current Israeli government stance on a lot of major issues. So does most of my family.
deja pseu at August 15, 2005 10:56 AM
Just to clarify - I wasn't making any of those charges against her, but it helps to know who is supporting her efforts in this regard, and what their motivations are. This woman has veered off into so many tangents lately, so it may clarify things if we know who's doing what behind the scenes.
Dmac at August 15, 2005 11:57 AM
Bennet -- that dog won't hunt. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq until we showed up. So try it again: why are we in Iraq? Or, if you think it's such a noble cause -- why aren't you in Iraq?
Frank at August 15, 2005 3:01 PM
Frank, that's a devastating question you ask, really powerful; duh.
Go read the Iraq War Resolution if you're still unclear why we're in Iraq. It has a lot of big words, but with a dictionary and a couple of weeks, I'm sure you can penetrate it.
Richard Bennett at August 15, 2005 5:35 PM
Well, I see this:
"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated"
No, that can't be it; the President and his advisors actually knew that any "evidence" we had of WMDs was bogus, so that doesn't count.
Then there's
"Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security"
but we all know that's bogus, and I'm fairly sure the Preznit knew it at the time.
The rest of it is all pretty weak sauce, considering none of the allegations charge Iraq with anything that had changed substantially over the previous 10 years.
We had Hussein defanged -- he was no threat to the US, and every conservative out there knows it. We went after him at the expense of taking down bin Laden, whose family are close personal and professional friends of the Bushes.
It smells like something decidedly ignoble to me. But if you're really gung ho on this war, why aren't you over there fighting it?
Because it's a war worth having *other* people die for?
Frank at August 15, 2005 6:43 PM
Whoa, there's that highly original heavy-duty rhetorical attack again, the one that makes me shiver with fear and quake in my VRWC boots. Like, totally.
If Saddam was such a lovable teddy bear, Frank, how come the mass graves? Is that the sort of thing that a champion of human rights does?
And if you're so gung-ho for Saddam, why didn't you go over there and play Human Shield to keep the imperialists from stealing his oil?
But let's talk about this: "Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated"
It turns out the intelligence was probably wrong on this point, or else Saddam did a mighty fine job of covering his tracks. But taking the assumption that it was wrong and Saddam didn't have to spirit any gear into hiding before the long-anticipated invasion, what evidence to you have that the President *knew* it was wrong all along, as you say?
Or do you just pull claims out of your ass and go with them?
Richard Bennett at August 15, 2005 7:14 PM
Yes, opposing an incompetent war-monger equates with being pro-Saddam, you moral fucktard.
So why aren't you over there, you cowardly chicken-hawk?
Frank at August 15, 2005 9:36 PM
I'm not fighting Saddam for the same reason I didn't fight Hitler, Frank, I'm not in the right age group.
But Human Shields were all ages, so why weren't you among them, terror-chicken?
Richard Bennett at August 16, 2005 11:40 AM
All this name calling is really very gauche.
Can you not engage each other civilly?
If not, haven't you become what you have learned to hate?
Goddyss at August 16, 2005 1:05 PM
Why is she a racist? She could have just as easily made that remark about any other nation under U.S. protection.
Patrick at August 16, 2005 2:56 PM
She could have just as easily made that remark about any other nation under U.S. protection.
But she didn't, she made it about Israel. She also wants us out of Afghanistan, BTW.
Richard Bennett at August 16, 2005 4:02 PM
She can want us out of Peru for all I care, and be right and wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't make her less right about Iraq. And I, for one, don't tag any criticism of Israel with racism. Quite frankly, that would make a whole lot of Israelis...racist! (Haven't you heard the one, Richard, about 12 Jews having 13 opinions?)
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2005 7:57 PM
I heard that about Malayalees, actually.
The fact that Cindy Sheehan has lost a son doesn't endow her with any authority about America's foreign policy, and I think it's shame the poor ditz has been so badly exploited. She's lost not only her son, but her husband, her job, and the respect of her family. And while she's the flavor of the week at Huffie-Puffie right now, they'll soon toss her out like last week's recycling.
Richard Bennett at August 16, 2005 9:36 PM
Much like "sex!" was the decoy luring people away from investigating a former President, "WMD!" is the flagword used for Iraq.
If you go to this site and scroll down to "Nuclear States in the Shadows", you can see the minimum state of development Iraq reached before Desert Storm interrupted them.
Does this mean that a nation should not be allowed to develop capabilities the same way the US did? No. Does it mean that Iraq is not and was not a nation of agrarian camel jockeys? Yes. Can such an investment in capability be made to vanish? Only in American newspapers.
Read about Iraq. Then read about what we are doing.
Radwaste at August 17, 2005 2:23 AM
Naw, it's a lot easier to stay ignorant and beat up on Bush, he's such an easy target.
Richard Bennett at August 17, 2005 2:26 PM
Some really wonderful information, Glad I noticed this.
druk wizytówek at August 11, 2011 12:12 PM
Leave a comment