August 14, 2005
Lysistrata and Mrs. Sheehan
The Greeks wrote a play called Lysistrata. Mrs. Sheehan, camped out on our President’s doorstep in Crawford, Texas is a shining example of Lysistrata’s playwright’s intent centuries ago. Lysistrata speaks of what the world could be if women simply refused to give men their penis measuring wars by withholding their sublime pleasures until men listened to the wisdom of motherhood.
Mrs. Sheehan is acting out an ancient tale born of the passionate desire of parents to keep their children safe and happy. She is noble in her stand, she is honest in her pleas. All the world's a stage... and politics is as inherent to the play as a parent's passion. She cannot undo the past, but feels committed to doing all she can to ensure no other mother must grieve unnecessarily for the loss of their child to what she believes is an unnecessary war.
She is right. So, are those that argue regardless of the necessity to invade Iraq, we cannot simply up and leave today with any sense of honor or dignity. The really pertinent question which remains to be answered is, if we continue in Iraq, will the day ever come when leaving can be accomplished with honor and dignity. Mrs. Sheehan apparently believes if entering the war was not dignified and honorable, exiting it never can be. I don't know, she might be right, she might not be. Time will tell.
But, everyone should celebrate Mrs. Sheehan's ability to make her voice as loud in the media as the President's, for America is not governed by a King whose voice should drown out all others. I am immensely grateful a voice such as Sheehan's can still be heard along side that of the President's and with equal volume.
Posted by David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 12:36 PMHeh. Sheehan is part of the problem. The same testosterone hype that lead us to Iraq is the same estrogen hype that will make us lose Iraq. WE CANNOT LEAVE IRAQ!!! Kindly get that into your heads. Liberals accuse NeoCons for not having a plan. How about a plan AFTER we leave Iraq? What happens if Turkey invades? What happens if extremists launch missiles to Israel?
There is always the next day and Liberals are not Conservatives. We must use our brains instead of religion. We have responsibilities. We do not cower from them.
Stay in Iraq.
Posted by: Aldous at August 14, 2005 01:11 PMRight on Aldous. Besides staying in Iraq will allow us to quickly slip into Iran and get that going.
Posted by: steve smith at August 14, 2005 01:20 PMAnd when Musharaaf dies, we can look forward to Pakistan, with a little help from our Indian friends. Damn, this is going to be soo-o-o cool! And Chinussia won’t lift a finger, they don’t have to.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2005 01:40 PMAldous,
Again I assume you are being sarcastic; you cannot actually believe that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, can you?
Emotional appeals make us feel good or bad without giving any solutions we can use. There is a big difference between using emotional or value criteria in making decision and being ruled appeals to guilt or suffering.
Emotion is powerful and it can intimidate. I try not to argue with my wife for many good reasons. The bad reason is that if I am right, she cries and I lose. If I am wrong, I lose too. If a country like the U.S. adopts my admittedly short-term peace winning strategy, we become the victim of anyone who can play on our emotions. Most are not as nice as my wife.
Emotional appeals are fundamentally dishonest. The purveyors often want the benefits of what they oppose without taking responsibility.
The real argument over the Iraq policy involves considering the alternatives – then and now. Opponents of the policy have managed to convince themselves that there was a zero option. If we would just have gone home in 2003, everything would have been fine, they say. This is not true. Then we have the current alternatives. Does pulling out work? President Bush did not want to stay in Iraq. That is one of the things critics point out. He thought it would be a in and out operations. He was wrong. But you can’t both complain that he was wrong about getting out fast and claim that he should get out faster.
Critics are actually arguing a backward looking strategy. Essentially the argument is that we should have done everything better starting in 2002. Who would not wish to go back and do things differently knowing how events turned out? All of us would be millionaires if we could go back a couple of years and play the market with today’s knowledge. But would we?
What if we went back and didn’t invade Iraq? We would still have troops in Saudi (they were there to keep Saddam in line). We would still have to patrol northern and southern Iraq. (We were doing that to prevent Saddam from killing Kurds and Shiites.) We would still have 50,000 Iraqi children dying each year as a result of Saddam’s mismanagement. We would either still have the flawed oil for food program or we would have Saddam free of sanctions to do as he pleased. Maybe going back wouldn’t solve the problem, just give us different ones.
A couple of related things: Iraq the Model has an update on The constitution, the final countdown; A Message to Cindy Sheehan; and links to More Red on Red
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 14, 2005 03:05 PMMcCain laid out his criteria for leaving Iraq as,
“when I can fly into Bagdahd airport and drive to the green zone without an armoured car”.
I don’t see that as a possibility any time soon.
steve smith,
“Besides staying in Iraq will allow us to quickly slip into Iran and get that going.”
If we move into Iran, it will only verify that this administration is truely out of it’s mind. With all of the rank amateur mistakes that have been made, that would be the crowning blunder of all time.
Posted by: Rocky at August 14, 2005 03:59 PMsteve:
getting anything going in Iran, while at this point may be a foregone conclusion, is not a good thing for the US.
Iraq had a horrid military, untrained and undisiplined, and equipment that was at best, third world.
Iran is a whole different situation. A huge military, ready to fight with religious furvor, and weaponry and equipment that is much more modern.
Iran would be a huge undertaking. A huge loss of life for America, and would incite the rage of the rest of Arab countries.
The backlash of that….i really don’t care to think about.
the way you state; “Besides staying in Iraq will allow us to quickly slip into Iran and get that going.” is both amazingly arrogant and callous.
For all those here who have taken the time to condemn Cindy Sheehan for speaking against the war and not “supporting the troops”… for all those christians here who condemned moderate muslims for not speaking out against radicals… I have to ask:
Why the silence here on the subject of Phred Phelps’ group, the Westboro Baptist Church, protesting at the *funerals* of soldiers? You remember this guy, right? Godhatesfags.com? They’re the ones showing up at the funerals of soldiers with signs like “Thank God for IEDs” (Improvised Explosive Devices). They blame 9-11 and the war in Iraq on, you guessed it, US acceptance of homosexuality. So seriously, why not even the slightest mention of them? Why is it ok to lambast Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother, for having an antiwar stance but these nuts are given a free pass?
Posted by: Jarin at August 14, 2005 05:06 PMErr, Fred Phelps, not Phred Phelps… sorry about that typo.
Posted by: Jarin at August 14, 2005 05:07 PMStatment from Sheehan today;
“Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: “My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don’t owe you a penny…you give my son back and I’ll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we’ll put this war on trial.”
Perfectly logical statment for a liberal owned by far-left Democrats.
If we could only get some photo-opps of Her with Hillary?
Check Drudge for the full story(it gets better…lol).
Good- grief, do we still need Carl Rove?
This Phelps guy sounds very odd and I will be happy to say that he doesn’t speak for me. The fact that not many people have heard of him indicates that he does not speak for many people. I bet those who are outraged by him know much more about him than others.
I don’t think we can call him a leader. I persoanlly was unfamiliar (except I think you mentioned him before) with him until I read your comment.
Beagle-
Roger the Shrubber: Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred.
-Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Seriously, you are beating up on an old lady who lost her son to a war. Is nothing sacred here but the war in Iraq?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 14, 2005 06:14 PMJack:
Many people have heard of him, even if you have somehow managed not to. Phelps has been around for years, he picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a young man murdered for being gay, in 1998. He was heavily covered by CNN at that time, and has been heavily reported about on many other instances since then.
Research done by the Topical Capital Journal back in 1994 indicated that at that time the church had between 100 and 200 members. I wonder how that compares to the membership levels of the terrorist cells that moderate Muslims are condemned for not speaking out against?
As for comparing it to Sheehan, her protest in Texas has a constant presence of just over 100 supporters. Seems comparable to me.
Again, why all the condemnation of Sheehan for not supporting our troops by protesting the President, and the silence towards Phelps outright picketing against the soldiers and their families at the funerals of these honored dead?
Posted by: Jarin at August 14, 2005 06:41 PMJarin
I don’t think the fact that this guy has 100 followers is comparable to terrorist cells of the same numbers. I am not saying that I heard of all the important guys in the world, but this Phelps is clearly not very well known or representative of many people. He sounds like one of those weirdos that CNN sometimes finds.
My Google search turned up 907 entries about Phelps (mostly criticizing him). Goodle turned up 942,000 entries for Sheehan. I think that tells the story.
As I said, I am perfectly willing to condemn him in any case, if he has done what you say he has. I will not try to justify him. Do you know of any mainstream conservatives that are supporting or making excuses for him?
Posted by: jack at August 14, 2005 07:03 PMbeagle:
drudge??? you are telling us to rely on anything drudge says?
that’d be like me asking you to refer to the al franken website…
send me to something a little less biased if you want me to take you seriously.
Posted by: views at August 14, 2005 07:20 PMI refuse to read the Drudge Report. My refusal is not because it slants steeply to the right (although there’s no doubt that it does). I refuse to go there because it is one of the worst designed Web sites I’ve ever encountered, and has so many annoying popup ads that it might as well be a porn site (except that Drudge’s content too offensive to be porn)!
Posted by: Charles Wager at August 14, 2005 08:16 PMJack:
My Google search turned up 907 entries about Phelps (mostly criticizing him). Goodle turned up 942,000 entries for Sheehan. I think that tells the story.
Results 1 - 10 of about 97,400 for “Fred Phelps”
As for your question, no I don’t. I also don’t know any mainstream Muslims who are supporting or making excuses for the terrorists, but they have been condemned by many here for not speaking out against terrorists, who number even fewer in their cells than the members of Phelps church, and whom in many cases have achieved less publicity. The comparison holds.
Posted by: Jarin at August 14, 2005 08:28 PMActually, I was being completely serious about not leaving Iraq. Do you guys ever bother to look at a map? Iraq is not Vietnam. We cannot leave Iraq. The Democrats are being as blind about leaving Iraq now as the Republicans in going into Iraq.
McCain is right. Until you can walk the streets without the 3rd Infantry Division locking down the block, you cannot leave.
Posted by: Aldous at August 14, 2005 08:54 PMMcCain is right. Until you can walk the streets without the 3rd Infantry Division locking down the block, you cannot leave.
I think this is the wrong metric to use. It’s up to the Iraqi people to settle their problems, and if that means civil war then we need to stand back and give them room. We can’t simply impose peace on them.
Posted by: Jarin at August 14, 2005 09:00 PMJarin,
“It’s up to the Iraqi people to settle their problems, and if that means civil war then we need to stand back and give them room. We can’t simply impose peace on them.”
We went there uninvited and trashed the place. Brenner disbanded their military, and their infrastructure. They aren’t going to be able to settle their own problems for years.
And oh, BTW we are their problem.
The Drudge story is accurate since it was taken from an article written by Mike Ferner. I posted the link on my thread below.
Drudge probably picked it up from one of the other online sources of it.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 14, 2005 10:45 PMJarin
I am not sure what we are disagreeing about.
I am willing to condemn anyone who advocates violence in the U.S., whether it is against abortion clinics, against gays, against any group or against all groups. For me, the important thing is the crime. The motivation might be a mitigating factor, but never an excuse. If someone commits violence, he should be arrested. If he really feels he has the moral high ground, he shouldn’t mind going to jail for his beliefs, like Nelson Mandela did and let history judge.
I am sorry that I have not heard of Phelps. From what I read about him now, he doesn’t have moral authority that I would recognize and I don’t think he is a representative of conservatives in general. I suspect he is better known among non-conservatives and that they hold him up as an example.
This is an interesting phenomenon. Have you every heard of Leonard Petlier? I was vaguely aware that he was a killer in jail. In some circles in Germany, he is a household name. They think he is an important freedom fighter and don’t believe that most Americans couldn’t identify him even on a multiple-choice test. The same is true of Phelps. If you are worried about him becoming mainstream, you can put your mind at ease.
I read moderate Muslims everyday condemning terrorism. And they don’t call the terrorists in Iraq insurgents.
People should leave Cindy Sheehan alone. I do not think President Bush owes her a second chat - but she is a grieving mother and should be able to say what she wants.
As for Fred Phelps - who gives a shit about that wacko. I am surprised frankly that he is still alive. Or that his church hasn’t been burned down a second time.
And actually, he says that God is taking revenge for him for the 1st burning of his church. There is a man with a valid concept of God - hit man for Fred Phelps.
He runs a church that is basically his extended family. Why should ANYBODY give him anything like attention (at least of the verbal kind)?
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 15, 2005 02:43 AMV Edward,
I assume you’re being sarcastic.
We conquered Germany. Thank God we don’t have any troops there. We conquered Japan. Thank God we don’t have any troops there. We conquered the Philippines. Thank God we don’t have any troops there. Hell, we even conquered Cuba. Thank God we don’t have any troops there.
Face it people, we’re there forever. Unless, of course, we’re defeated as we were in Vietnam. (For that matter, if we’d won that war, does anybody think for a minute that we wouldn’t have a significant military presence in Vietnam today?) We’re like a bad dinner guest: once we show up, we don’t leave.
And we should be in Iraq for generations.
In the short term, we have to be there to prevent a sectarian civil war. Think of the United States as Great Britain and Iraq as Northern Ireland with jihad added in as a kicker. The IRA just announced a unilateral disarmament and the Brits still have more troops in Northern Ireland than they do in Iraq. Colin Powell was right: you break it; you own it. The freedom we promised the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds cannot mean the freedom to slaughter each other like the Hutu and the Tutsi.
In the long term, geopolitical considerations and simple military logistics indicate the need for a significant American military presence in Iraq. What Sheehan is looking for, unless she wants total chaos and believes that American lives are more important than Iraqi lives, is the knowledge that her son’s life was given for a reason that transcends the family feud between the Bushes and the Husseins that begat this war. What she wants, at least I hope what she wants, is to know that the sons of other mothers who are stationed in Iraq are as safe in Baghdad as they are at Ramstein and Misawa.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 15, 2005 03:19 AMI think what Sheehan wants first is to punish BushII for killing her son in a worse-than-useless-war. After that, she wants end the worse-than-useless-war or, at least, lose no more American lives.
As far as people talking about “honor and dignity” as part of an exit strategy. Sorry, but that’s bulls**t. We screwed up, we need to make amends. Sl(dr)udge and the other chickenhawk pundits should go and castrate themselves.
Isn’t there honor and dignity in standing tall and admiting a mistake? Wouldn’t the most honorable and dignified approach be to say “I (BushII) made a mistake. What can we do next to stop this bloodshed?” There is a hint of this in the recent news. Not enough, but a hint. Maybe him meeting Sheehan would be a step in putting honor and dignity back in the White House. BushII failed absolutly in that campaign promise so far…
Posted by: Dave at August 15, 2005 12:56 PMJack—
Once again…good post. You show how its easy to assume that the road NOT chosen has no problems. its easy to think that, since it has been untraveled.
Experienced travelers such as you understand that both the road chosen and the road not chosen can have problems…different ones, but problems nonetheless.
David,
You are right on target with this article. Frankly, I confess that I AM conflicted about what our best course is in Iraq given where we currently are. I am not the least conflicted, however, in my admiration for Cindy Sheehan. So what if history proves that the geopolitical consequences of a total U.S. withdrawal now is catastrophic. It may well be that given the situation in the Middle East in 2002 there was no averting catastrophe regardless of any action or inaction on the part of the United States.
Jack’s points in response are valid insofar as we just cannot know. We don’t have the luxury of trying multiple options and running history out with each until we get it right.
I do know that I am not willing to risk my life in a fight whose genesis I believed from day one to be an awful mistake, and I have a big problem with risking the lives of those who volunteered to serve, calling them back again and again, often against their desires, to an effort that is sufficiently unpopular that our resources are strained.
Bush may actually be genuine in his assertion that he believes Sheehan has the right to express her opinion, but he loses credibility in his stubbornness to address the inequity in the sacrifice he calls for on the part of ordinary Americans whose lives are on the line without calling for a comparable sacrifice from the rest of us with our insatiable appetite for oil and the immoral insistence on retaining the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
Like David, I am grateful that Sheehan’s voice can be heard along side that of the President’s. If it starts a groundswell that brings an end to our presence in Iraq, the negative geopolitical consequences of that is a risk I may be willing to face. The responsibility for those consequences will still lay at Bush’s feet, not Sheehan’s.
It has been gratifying to see lifelong conservatives recognizing the indecency of the right wing noise machine’s attacks on Sheehan. Bob Harris writes a fine article displaying the contrasting decency of Sheehan and her supporters as they continue their vigil.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 15, 2005 01:21 PMI wrote:
without calling for a comparable sacrifice from the rest of usMy error - comparable was clearly the wrong word choice here. I should have written
without calling for at least some sacrifice from the rest of usPosted by: Walker at August 15, 2005 01:27 PM
Most everyone on the left and, seemingly an increasing number of us on the right seem to advocate that President Bush proclaim that the war (and it’s related activities) in Iraq was a terrible mistake.
Realistically, I don’t think too many people think that will actually happen but, even if it did, what would it really mean or change. The casualties of war remain so, the alleged POW atrocities are still referenced, world opinion of the US is still tainted, the contested Bush appointments go forward and, the Bush credibility and/or character assasinations will continue on.
Most importantly, even after such an announcement, we are still at war and, even with no exit plan for Iraq, based on the predictions of some, a second war involving Iran will
possibly eventuate.
Now, it is not a secret that I am a right wing conservative and, that I support the administration. That is not to say that I agree with all their decisions and actions but, still maintain the allegiance.
Barring impeachment, resignation or death there are more than three full years in President Bush’s term. Power might change slightly at the stage 1 Senatorial re-election period in 2007 but, not enough IMO to significantly alter that level of government.
As admirable an effort as it is, a lot more action than periodic Cindy Sheehan demonstrations is going to be necessary to effect the types of change that get discussed in our posts.
I keep hearing that we have no exit plan for the war, not enough troops on the ground, Bush lied, it’s all about oil and Bush and Cheney getting rich, we deserve the truth, Iraq will be no better off when we leave, our equipment and weaponry is inadequate, etc. I could go on forever.
Does anyone have an answer for this problem that makes sense. More importantly a plan to deliver the message to the level of government that is in position to introduce and get the plan adopted? Obviously writing about what’s wrong and even having a suggestion is not going to change the direction that the administration is taking.
Ah Yes.
Republican Response #3: Do you have a Solution to Iraq or not?
Purpose: In order to avoid answering and/or acknowledging that Iraq is a problem caused by Republicans, it is standard to ask this to avoid the subject and put the complainer on the defensive. Once the Complainer is distracted, standard procedure is to bring up Clinton/Bosnia/Somalia to change the subject completely. This also serves the purpose of including the complainer in the problem. Instead of Iraq being a Republican Problem, it becomes “Our” problem.
Posted by: Aldous at August 15, 2005 10:02 PMI think the situation in Iraq and the Middle East is “our” problem. Meaning all citizens of the United States irrespective of political views or affiliations.
In addition to the Middle East issues, the developing activities in North Korea and China expands IMO “our” to mean the entire world.
Posted by: steve smith at August 15, 2005 10:32 PMWalker, thanks. If the public of the U.S. forces Bush’s hand to pullout before the end of his term, it will have been the right thing to do. In a democracy, yielding to the will of the majority is never the wrong thing, especially in regards to war which the public pays for in every way.
In hindsight, the other road may be judged less than the ideal choice by some or many, but, as conservatives are fond of saying these days, hindsight is a vindicator, not an indictor, arguing no one can know what might have happened on the road not taken.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2005 11:00 PMHeh. I find people who advocate withdrawal immediately to be of the same skin as those who advocated war immediately.
What do you think will happen if we leave Iraq right now? I have already listed some of the things that might happen. At what point will you advocate sending Troops to repair the fallout?
Posted by: Aldous at August 16, 2005 01:25 AMI wish this current adminastration would have the courage to explain that Iraq and The War on Terror is based on some of the oldest questions known to the Human Race. Laws ans Nations was formed out of Laws to govern the Beast of Nature “I the Rapitalist” who raped and pillaged the villages of “I the Consumers.” And We the Peole have been paying for it ever since. Yet how do you explain why The Founding Fathers of America is different than the Oppressive and Appeasement Governments of the World when actions and words of some citizens prove that our society still hold onto The Ancient and Old World Aryan Ways?
America is founded on The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature so that Reasonable and Logic Citizens can learn, understand, and know by their own spoken word that Our Nation can build an Unalienable Righteous Civilization regardless of Race, Color, or Creed. That is what our Troops are fighting for Nothing more or Nothing less.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 16, 2005 02:55 AMChris Matthews interviewed Sheehan yesterday on hardball.
When he ask her if it would have made a difference if her son had been killed in Afganistan, she replyed; No, we shouldn’t have been there either.
She has said so many kooky things lately that even the Democrats in congress are running away from questions about supporting her.
She needs to go home and stop making a fool of herself.
I’m with ya beagle. She has gone off the deep end a bit (I can’t completely blame her, she did lose a son). If the media would stop holding a mic up to her every time she coughs or breaths then she might be able figure out that the best thing to do is go back home, grieve his death properly, and try to move on with the rest of her life.
The woman clearly has not healed from her loss and the media covering every move she makes does not help that cause.
Posted by: BradM at August 16, 2005 09:07 AMDoes anyone have an answer for this problem that makes sense.
Of course, steve. Vote Democrat. Seriously, we have a legislative plan that’s being ignored by GOP leaders. Increase troop strength, crush the insurgency, and secure the borders.
Pulling President Bush’s chestnuts out of the fire isn’t rocket science, but it involves a sustained commitment on a scale that would convince everyone that his Iraq adventure was a huge mistake, and drive his poll numbers even further into the ground. You can bet that’s not going to happen with Republicans controlling Congress and the presidency.
BradM,
Don’t get me wrong, I feel for her loss and understand what she has gone through, but she is being used by the far left and the media.
I think the lady needs help and counseling to get through her pain, not support to keep doing what she’s doing. She will lose her mental, and phyical health if she doesn’t get that.
I have a nephew in the marine corp, he has served one tour in Afganastan and one in Iraq.
He will start his 2nd tour in Iraq in Feb.
I understand what it would do to my brother if he lost his only son.
Sheehan has another son that has ask her to come home, her husband has filed for divorse, and those pushing her to do what she’s doing are just useing her for political reasons.
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 09:44 AMOf course, steve. Vote Democrat. Seriously, we have a legislative plan that’s being ignored by GOP leaders. Increase troop strength, crush the insurgency, and secure the borders.
EEEEWWWWW! No thanks! lol..
All jokes aside, I would agree with the idea that AP stated. IMHO we do need more troops there, to secure the borders and crush the insurgency. And the quicker the better.
Thats probably where the agreement ends however because I don’t believe that doing such a thing would “convince everyone that his Iraq adventure was a huge mistake”. I still believe that it was the right thing to do and support the fact that it was done. It’s the handling of it since we got into the “police action” phase that I think has not been handled as well as it should have been by the administration (though probably not as poorly as some of you may believe). However, it is not to late in my mind to ramp back up and fix it. Too much progress has been made and continues to be made in Iraq for me to call this thing a disaster and just give up and walk away as many democrats seem so eager to do.
Posted by: BradM at August 16, 2005 10:07 AMAP,
Even if everyone who voted did so for a Democratic candidate, there is still a 3 year waiting period before any meaningful change in the majority will be possible.
How valid will the plan you have today be 3 years from now.
Also do you believe that “crush the insurgency” or, any other more agressive action can occur without resulting in the loss of “innocent” lives.
Posted by: steve smith at August 16, 2005 10:28 AMC’mon, steve. Innocent lives are lost every day in Iraq. The sooner the country is secure, the sooner the killing stops.
As for the plan, it’s the only one out there. As I said, Republicans aren’t going to commit the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq.
…just give up and walk away as many democrats seem so eager to do.
Brad, you mean “a few Democrats.” The vast majority of Congressional Democrats want to win this thing, and don’t understand why President Bush and most Congressional Republicans do not.
“We have to be prepared for a long involvement. We have to do it not just rhetorically. We have to have the resources, we have to expand our army, our Marine Corps, we have to provide them with the best equipment possible,” [Senator Jack] Reed said. “There’s lots of things we can do.”Posted by: American Pundit at August 16, 2005 10:48 AM“My fear is that there’s pressure in the United States that is forcing us to re-evaluate our position rather than what’s happening on the ground in Iraq,” Reed said.
“…They have squandered about every opportunity to get it right,” Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday.
Cindy Sheehan is a disgrace to her son. She degrades his death and his life!
Posted by: TCHUCK at August 16, 2005 10:50 AMBeagle said: ” but she is being used by the far left and the media.”
This is very true, Beagle. She is also being used by the far right to label the left unpatriotic. Then there are the many of us who say she is an American with a beef, and in America it is a great thing that she can speak her beef alongside a public road till her heart is content. Afterall, down here in Texas, we have hooded KKK right wing extremists using the roadside for their message, as well. The 1st Amendment is truly is a wonderful and great law, for despite its negative uses, it insures a free people in a free land.
Beagle said: ” She needs to go home and stop making a fool of herself.”
I say as long as Bush refuses, so should she. She is a fool in some eyes, Beagle, not others. In other’s eyes she is an American hero with the guts to stand and speak to power. I respect her for that, though her views lack a degree of pragmatism and consistency IMO. Still, she is an example of what it means to be a free person in a free land, and we need people like her to speak to the media to demonstrate that we are still a free people in a free land.
Such freedom is not lost in the headlines, it is lost quietly and in bits and pieces, which is why it is important that Sheehan speaks and has media coverage - she is living proof freedom still exists in America, for awhile longer.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 11:22 AMEveryone should stand with Mrs. Sheehan in protesting the Iraq War in light of the lies that took us there, how they’ve waged the war, and the fact there are no longer any justifications for anything they’ve said thus far.
They’ve said we needed to go there…
Because Saddam has WMDs and is a threat to America. (There were none.)
Because Saddam was linked to Al Qaida. (He wasn’t — but now the insurgency definitely is.)
Because Saddam unlawfully imprisoned, tortured and raped, therefore, we’ll be met with flower petals. (We weren’t welcomed, and now we are hated by the majority of the people because we also instituted unlawful imprisonment, torture and rape)
Because the war and reconstuction would be entirely paid for by oil revenues. (It’s been payed for by us — and seems likely to bankrupt our nation)
Because were fighting the “War on Terror” there so we don’t have to fight it here. (We are no safer from terrorism because of this war — and obviously, neither was England despite all their experience and extensive precautions)
And because Operation Iraqi Freedom would bring them Freedom and Democracy.
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.Posted by: Adrienne at August 16, 2005 11:30 AMThe United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.”
David,
I agree she has the right to do what she’s doing, the media on both sides have the right to report on it, either side could fit it into an ajenda, but does any of it help Mrs. Sheehan deal with her problems?
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 11:31 AMHenry said: “That is what our Troops are fighting for Nothing more or Nothing less.”
Having been in the service, I have to disagree. Our troops are fighting because they have been ordered to. Any general will tell you, if the troops are given a choice to go to war or not go to war, it would be about half and half give or take on either side, or about 75% for 25% against during WWII, and about 25% for and 75% against during Viet Nam.
The reasons for war are not found in the troops. The reasons for war are found in the heads of state who decide on war. This is crucial to a true understanding of the politics of war and structure of militaries.
The War in Iraq was about strategic military positioning, taking out an attempted assasin of our President’s father, protecting the flow of oil, as well as some hairbrained idea about a domino theory of democracy spreading throughout the Middle East. These were the reasons for in Iraq.
And they are very different from the reasons for the war in Afghanistan, where both retaliation for being attacked and destroying the homebase of a real and imminent threat toward us existed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 11:34 AMAP,
You know my position on agressive warfare. While I do have compassion for innocent citizens I still advocate getting to the insurgents and terrorists at all costs.
I have no problem “crushing the insurgency” by whatever means will be most effective considering loss of innocent life to be a necessary evil to establishing longer term security.
Steve Smith, by all accounts that is exactly the thinking of Stalin and Hitler. Long term security at any cost. There is a reason they are reviled in history, and this thinking that collateral damage is unavoidable and therefore should not be a deterrent to the use of whatever force is necessary to accomplish one’s goals, is that reason.
America has come along way since bombing and killing a few hundred thousand non-military civilians in Japan with continuous incindiary bombing runs upon their cities prior to dropping the atomic weapons. Was it necessary? No. The atomic bombs would have ended the war just as quickly with or without the incindiary bombing runs. But that was a different time, and a different mindset for war, without the revelations of what it was that made a Hitler or Stalin so evil.
We know better today. We value human life in all cultures, especially, innocent civilian life, today. Why would you want to return us to a time when life has no importance where military objectives are concerned? This kind of thinking does not speak well for the people espousing the spread of democracy and freedom in the world. In fact, it is antithetical.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 11:58 AMAdrienne said: (We are no safer from terrorism because of this war — and obviously, neither was England despite all their experience and extensive precautions)”
Truer words were never spoke. Glad to see you back in the fray, Adrienne.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 12:04 PMDavid Remer,
There is IMO a distinct difference between agressive warfare that results in the loss of “innocent” lives short term so that the remaining “innocent” citizenry will have better and more secure lives long term than your example of Hitler tactics which was “ethnic cleansing”.
I am appalled as well with the “ethnic cleansing” disgrace that took place in Eastern Europe and Africa more recently.
“We know better today. We value human life in all cultures, especially, innocent civilian life, today. Why would you want to return us to a time when life has no importance where military objectives are concerned? This kind of thinking does not speak well for the people espousing the spread of democracy and freedom in the world. In fact, it is antithetical.”
I think if you conducted a poll in this country as to whether or not we valued human life in all cultures THE MAJORITY WOULD AGREE.
I WOULD NOT want to return us to a time when life has no importance where military objectives are concerned. Undeniable fact is that WAR RESULTS IN KILLING THE ENEMY, THERE IS ALWAYS COLLATERAL DAMAGE.
Back to the poll…Ask Americans (the same majority who agreed that they valued human life in all cultures) whether they valued the human life residing in the area bounded by the Pacific ocean in the West and the Atlantic ocean in the East and, by Canada to the North and Mexico to the South greater than they valued the human life living on the other land masses around the world. YOU TELL ME WHAT THE MAJORITY WOULD SAY.
I cannot speak to the rationale of the decision to make incindiary bombing runs on Japaneese cities prior to dropping the bombs. I can say however that I agree with the bomb dropping as a deterrent to 1) prolonging the war and 2) future military action against us by Japan. That said, I also agree with the decision to contain the Japaneese civilians in this country for the obvious reason and, possibly more importantly, for their own safety.
I have no problem “crushing the insurgency” by whatever means will be most effective considering loss of innocent life to be a necessary evil to establishing longer term security.
Steve, I agree 100%. I had ment to add a similar line to my earlier post but it slipped my mind. Thanks!
“Of course, steve. Vote Democrat”
Would love to AP. When are you guys going to run one for president?
Posted by: kctim at August 16, 2005 01:19 PMSteve, thank you for that ‘some life is more valuable than other life, some cultures are more valued than other cultures, and some nation’s innocent civilian deaths are far more necessary than other nation’s innocent civilian deaths’ moral relativism.
It is good to see an honest conservative willing to out the core motivation of their philosophy and rationale for voting and party affinity. I wish more conservatives had your sense of honesty and forthrightness in discussing the temperaments that motivate their political positions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 01:45 PMAdrienne,
We weren’t welcomed, and now we are hated by the majority of the people because we also instituted unlawful imprisonment, torture and rapePlease link this from an Iraqi source. I think the vast majority of Iraqi’s: 1) thank us for getting rid of Saddam; 2) want us to stay and help protect them from the terrorists (neither the homegrown or the imports are insurgents) until their army and police are rebuilt; and 3) are worried we will not leave when that is done. They are quite rational in all of that. Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 16, 2005 02:00 PM
David,
Why did you join the military? Or was you darfted? Can you show me one Culture or Society that openly promotes living and building an Unalienable Wrong World? True, the world that we all live in is not perfect; however, to say that the Pricinciples which America was founded upon is wrong shows that as a Society and Nation your generations still have not learned and come to understand that which you know to be Right and that which you Think to be Right by your own spoken Words.
Someone said that The Poor will always be among us. Now can you explain to me why that statement if found to be Unalienable Right Regardless? Like this blog site, we have the unalienable Right to argue whether 1 TV per household is Right or 1 TV per room is Right, but can you make any reasonable and logical argument that says you have the Right to have 20 TV’s per room without given me “Just Cause” to call you out as a Predator?
Yes, wars have been fought over some of the most stupidest reasons known to reasonable and logical Humans throughout history; nevertheless, this war is being fought over who’s form of government is Unalienable Right given the Political and Socia Argument of the Early 70’s that clearly stated Mankind is here to serve Soiciety thus by defualt of Law makes Our Civilization a Living Diety.
Remember, OBL saying a few weeks before the 2004 Election that he and his Rapitalistic friends knew how to deal with the Appeasement and Oppressive Governments of The World. It was only “We the Consumers” that he was worried about? Change the word People in our Preamble to Consumers and check out how The Domain of Law radiculely changes the layout of The Land. Although I have been quiet on the Blog, I’m in the process of writing a book to prove just how Unalienable Right The Founding Fathers of America were when they bound Our Nation to follow The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 16, 2005 02:02 PMHenry, I enlisted, why is my personal business, June 72 to Dec. 75, honorably discharged as an E-5.
Can you show me one Culture or Society that openly promotes living and building an Unalienable Wrong World?
Sure, Nazi Germany, Pinohet’s government, and Stalin’s authoritarianship to name just 3 of many others. Of course, this answer is correct only if one defines your word ‘Wrong’ as exclusive of all other’s rights but one’s own.
This war is being fought over who’s form of government is Unalienable Right given the Political and Socia Argument of the Early 70’s that clearly stated Mankind is here to serve Soiciety thus by defualt of Law makes Our Civilization a Living Diety.
According to who? Not according to me and millions upon millions of other Americans, Europeans, etc. assuming you are talking about the war in Iraq. It would be helpful if you were more specific since, we have two wars going, each with different motives and objectives underlying rhetoric of common purpose.
It was only “We the Consumers” that he was worried about? Change the word People in our Preamble to Consumers and check out how The Domain of Law radiculely changes the layout of The Land.
Change that word and you change the entire philosophy of our democracy. OBL’s opinion of anything has no bearing whatsoever on our form of government, thankfully. Are you proposing we alter our government to fit the words of OBL? Or are you simply proposing we change our understanding of our founding documents to fit an understanding of OBL’s words and intentions? In either case, I could not disagree with your more emphatically.
I’m in the process of writing a book to prove just how Unalienable Right The Founding Fathers of America were when they bound Our Nation to follow The Laws of Nature and The God of Nature.
Good luck on your book. The above quote makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me and communicates nothing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 02:28 PMAdrienne, I think jchfleetguy is right. The Iraqi people want many of the same things we want. They want security, which they don’t have now, didn’t have under Saddam, and are unlikely to have when we leave. I empathize with them deeply.
They want quality of life infrastructure provides, which they did have under Hussein more than now, just barely have today, and may not have for many years to come if the insurgency and terrorism is not brought under control. Some in Iraq (though not many by reports from journalists in Iraq) now regret Hussien’s removal for this very reason.
The majority of Iraqis from all reports are very grateful for our removal of Hussein and his henchman. A poll not too long ago also shows them to be very apprehensive about Bush’s intent to withdraw completely from Iraq, when asked, or told.
And if I were an Iraqi living in Iraq, I would worry that the US IS the magnet that is drawing so much violence and mayhem to Iraq, but the US’s leaving may mean a divided Iraq with large portions of it destined to abject poverty from losing out on the immensely important agricultural and oil wealth to be fought over by a civil war and dissection of Iraq.
I have not been there. But I would hazard the guess that many if not most Iraqis, believe they are in a damned if the US withdraws, and damned if the US doesn’t, situation. Another word for it is ‘quagmire’.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 02:41 PMBeagle asked: “but does any of it help Mrs. Sheehan deal with her problems?”
From a psychological point of view, the answer is an absolute YES, it does help her deal with her problems. She has been injured. Instead of allowing the injury to victimize her, she is taking positive action from her point of view to turn her loss into something positive, lowering the death toll for other mothers and fathers. Turning her grief into positive action is very important to the healing process. It signifies acceptance of the loss, it rejects the feelings of helplessness which can paralyze an injured person, and it gives new meaning and purpose to her life in the absence of her son.
All of this is healthy for her recovery from one of the greatest injuries a parent can suffer, the loss of their child. Walsh did the same thing after the kidnapping and murder of his child.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 02:54 PMDavid,
I have rarely seen you this active in a thread.
Thanks for your response to my earlier post which when you authored it assumed it would be read and interpreted by the most naive individual in the galaxy.
Posted by: steve smith at August 16, 2005 03:21 PMjchfleetguy:
“Please link this from an Iraqi source.”
Here are two from Al Jazeera:
Iraqis angry with abuse sentence
Exclusive: Iraqi family tells of torture
If you want to see how closely they’ve been following these stories in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world, just search the same site for “Abu Ghaib”, “Guantanamo”, or “Torture”
David:
“A poll not too long ago also shows them to be very apprehensive about Bush’s intent to withdraw completely from Iraq, when asked, or told.”
I wonder what they’d say to a poll about this sentence:
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
Sounds to me that if they want to live in a free and democratic country, they’re going to have to fight for it themselves.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 16, 2005 03:30 PMDavid,
I agree it could help her deal with her problems, “IF” she is stable.
Thats a big “IF”.
Posted by: Beagle at August 16, 2005 03:36 PMAdrienne said: “Sounds to me that if they want to live in a free and democratic country, they’re going to have to fight for it themselves.”
That has been my position from before the invasion. On this we are in total agreement.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 04:14 PMDavid,
How can “We the Poeple” and “We the Consumers” be different? If “I the Corporation” is to make money doesn’t “I the Consumer” need to have money to spend on their product? Remember, I do not think in the same political box that your generation did when they settled for The Beast of Nature “I the Corporation” to rule the affairs of The World. Replace the Beast of Nature “I the Corporation with the Beast of Nature “We the Consumer” and as an American who do you want to tell you what you can and can not do.
As far as your three country’s of Social Ignorance, The Sands of Time (The Beast of Nature “I the Consumer”) has dealt with them. However, America may have stumbled, but the path “We the People” have always sought has been what is Right and True.
However, as is known today that which was only in Theory at best in the Early 70’s is that unless The Citizens of America and Humanity’s Nations can build a global community where “We the Consumes” (i.e. Nations) can provide all of our “I the Consumers” (i.e. Citizens) with everything that they need and want in a manner that does not allow The Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” to eat than “We the People” need to work on building a More Perfect Nation. Look around you isn’t everything politically driven today to that point?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 16, 2005 04:23 PMIf we exit Iraq any time soon we will be leaving it the same way we found it save destruction of buildings and utilities and, removal of one sadistic dictator.
Even worse, we will be handing it over to someone else who will take it because they understand the culture and are schooled in the ways of brutality, torture, terrorism and, are liberal in their use of same.
The Middle East will see that to bring us to our knees they simply have to cut off the oil. It will have little or no affect on their economy because they will sell it to someone else.
We think we have problems now. Compared to the problems that will begin when the last US soldier leaves Iraq, we are presently in high cotton.
Posted by: steve smith at August 16, 2005 04:42 PM
IMHO IMHO
V. Edward Martin:
You were quoted as saying this earlier in this thread: Is this your quote?
“Again I assume you are being sarcastic; you cannot actually believe that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely, can you?”
Posted by: V. Edward Martin at August 14, 2005 02:36 PM
If you believed that, Explain these events Still in Germany and other countries in Europe some 60 odd years later, Republic of Korea 52 years after hostilities towards each other ceased. More recently Bosnia-Herzagovina 15 December,1995 , 5 years tops, Uh Huh tell that to your sons and daughters when they get tasked to deploy there.
To be fair, we have pulled out of Some places after going in there Panama for one, Only because of a treaty signed jointly during the Carter Administration, Haiti was another, As was the Island of Spice (Grenada).But we overstayed our welcome in the Middle East, Almost 15 years ago, we deployed the largest Unified Army not seen this side of WWII invade Iraq, by land, sea and air. After bombing them into submission, they all but rolled over and gave up. But we made a mistake, we didn’t want anything in the region but to keep our troops in the region not long maybe just a few hundred years give or take 50 years. Not alot to ask is it? After all isn’t that a spoil of war? Pilaging the countryside of all its natural resources?…Well, unfortunately that region of the world has vasts resources of a commodity we SO desporately need OIL go on say it OIL doesn’t that just slide off your tounge when you say it….OIL, OIL, OIL, Now don’t you feel better. What was I saying, Oh yeah, What business was “Dubya” in before Daddy got him into Politics, Oh yeah now I remember The OIL biznes. As for us pulling out of the region, You have Got To Be kidding.
IMHO IMHO
Those Are My Thoughts on the matter:
As Always,
Wayne
If we exit Iraq any time soon we will be leaving it the same way we found it save destruction of buildings and utilities and, removal of one sadistic dictator.
I couldn’t construct a more solid testimony to the complete incompetence of BushCo., even if I tried.
The American people were told re-electing Shrub would get us “more of the same”, and more of the same we have.
We have to see this through, but the continued arrogrance of this administration and complete lack of planning is going to make matters progressively worse in time. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. It’s a quagmire if I’ve ever seen one.
I agree it could help her deal with her problems, “IF” she is stable.
At least she is doing SOMETHING, which is more than can be said for the average American, and our government as a whole. In a time when America needs strong leadership …. we have…. Shrub. I admire Sheehan for having the courage and conviction to do what she’s doing. At the bare minimum, she’s making people think, and that is never a bad thing.
Posted by: Taylor at August 16, 2005 06:14 PMI could not agree any more with you Taylor.
“Shrub. I admire Sheehan for having the courage and conviction to do what she’s doing. At the bare minimum, she’s making people think, and that is never a bad thing.
Posted by: Taylor at August 16, 2005 06:14 PM”
As Always,
Wayne
Henry asked: ” How can “We the Poeple” and “We the Consumers” be different?”
We the people have certain rights by definition of our being human beings. Consumers can be anthing from a human being to a corporation to another nation buying goods from us to inanimate public works project which consumes water or clean air replacing it with dirty air.
huge, Huge, HUGE Difference!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 06:38 PMAdrienne
I said an Iraqi source. It would do everyone good to read Iraqi’s on Iraq. Try again. (and you might consider not using the folks who consistantly support terrorism in the Arab world)
Sounds to me that if they want to live in a free and democratic country, they’re going to have to fight for it themselves.They are. One of the criticisms here is that they might work out a government we do not like - therefore we lost [that is, BTW, really imperialist logic]
Keep in mind that without the French we might still be saying “God Save the Queen”. Their fleet was ESSENTIAL for our victory in the Revolution.
David
Another word for it is ‘quagmire’.Not in Iraq - not yet. We have Sunni’s being threatened by Al Queda because they are going to participate in the next election. We have a draft constitution coming out in the next week which will not rely (my prediction) on sharia law. If that is accepted by the people; and elections are held in December (and the Sunni participate); then there is no way you can call that kind of progress a ‘quagmire’.
jchfleetguy:
“I said an Iraqi source. It would do everyone good to read Iraqi’s on Iraq. Try again. (and you might consider not using the folks who consistantly support terrorism in the Arab world)”
Everyone quoted in those articles were Iraqi’s. But okay. How about this from a webblog being written by a woman in Iraq:
Almost every Iraqi family can give the name of a friend or relative who is in one of the many American prisons for no particular reason. They aren�t allowed to see lawyers or have visitors and stories of torture have become commonplace. Both Sunni and Shia clerics who are in opposition to the occupation are particularly prone to attacks by �Liwa il Theeb� or the special Iraqi forces Wolf Brigade. They are often tortured during interrogation and some of them are found dead.
And:
The detention is disturbing. Now I am not personally fond of Muhsin Abdul Hameed- he looks somewhat like a dried potato, and he�s a Puppet. It is disturbing, though, because if this was really a mistake, then just imagine how many other �mistakes� are being unfairly detained and possibly tortured in places like Abu Ghraib. Abdul Hameed is one of their own and even he wasn�t safe from a raid, humiliation and detention.
And:
I have a feeling it will be the usual excuse, �The soldiers who almost killed the journalist were really, really frightened. They�ve been under lots of pressure.� But see, Iraqis are frightened and under pressure too- we don�t go around accidentally killing people. We�re expected to be very level-headed and sane in the face of chaos.I wager that this little incident will be shoved aside with one of those silly Pentagon apologies that don�t really sound like apologies, you know: �It was an unfortunate incident, but Sgrena shouldn�t have been in Iraq in the first place. Journalists should stay safely in their own countries and listen for our daily military statements telling them democracy is flourishing and Iraqis are happy.�
I don�t understand why Americans are so shocked with this incident. Where is the shock? That Sgrena�s car was under fire? That Americans killed an Italian security agent? After everything that occurred in Iraq- Abu Ghraib, beatings, torture, people detained for months and months, the stealing, the rape� is this latest so very shocking? Or is it shocking because the victims weren�t Iraqi?
I�m really glad she�s home safe but at the same time, the whole situation is somewhat painful. It hurts because thousands of Iraqis have died at American checkpoints or face to face with a tank or Apache and beyond the occasional subtitle on some obscure news channel, no one knows about it and no one cares. It just hurts a little bit.
Need more? How many quotes from different Iraqi’s do you require? (I know how you Bush apologists are relentless about making anyone who doesn’t agree with you provide lots and lots of proof for everything we say) Just let me know. There are many more blogs written in English like this womans that I could also quote from.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 16, 2005 08:01 PMExcellent resource Adrienne, and great way to head em off at the pass with the “proof” rhetoric. When it comes to empathy for the people of a nation we war with, the right seems to always come up short, noting some exceptions, of course.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 08:59 PMjchfleetguy, something you don’t seem to realize is that the Constitution and its contents have no meaning to the general Iraqi people, and even less to insurgents and terrorists. But, it’s OK to keep your optimism and fingers crossed: little harm in that.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 09:02 PMDavid, thanks for proving my point of view. While it is right and true that Humans are endowed by their “Creator” with certain unable Rights, explain to us how a corporation orinanimate public works project which consumes water or clean air replacing it with dirty air. not represented in our government and society. Shot the pothole in your road is repreneted as a Consumer of your local tax dollar is it not?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 16, 2005 10:12 PMSorry, Henry, your last comment is too cryptic for me. What in the hell are you trying to say?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2005 10:15 PMDavid:
“Excellent resource Adrienne,”
Yeah, I’ve been reading “Baghdad Burning” on and off for a long while now and I think she’s very believable and often eloquent. It’s so obvious when you read what she writes that Iraq (despite all it’s problems with Sadaam) really was a secular country before our invasion. I truly fear for women like her now that they’re going to have a theocracy.
“and great way to head em off at the pass with the “proof” rhetoric.”
I’m not really trying to head off having to produce my own proof — I just find it annoying when people keep demanding more without offering any of their own proof to the contrary.
It’s funny too, because he didn’t like my giving a link to those Al Jazeera articles— even though that’s a source that is considered necessary reading among the Iraqi population — meaning that their opinions are undoubtedly going to be influenced by what they report. It’s also interesting to me that he could so easily dismiss it as a source too, since if he had done as I suggested and searched for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Torture on the Al Jazeera site, he would have seen that much of what they are posting (and what the Iraqi people are reading there) are news stories culled from from American and English newspapers!
“When it comes to empathy for the people of a nation we war with, the right seems to always come up short, noting some exceptions, of course.”
So true. And not just them, but even our own people are stinted on for sympathy or empathy these days. Notably Cindy Sheehan, and some of the other parents of our own dead soldiers who have joined her in Texas, for example. It’s clear that in the minds of many on the right, these folks don’t garner one ounce of respect, either.
I consider rather bizarre how often such people will claim to love America with true patriotic fervor, but immediately turn around and despise anyone who decides to exercise their First Amendment rights as American citizens if they don’t agree with what they have to say.
Just last night, one of these Bushco-blind-follower types decided to attach a bunch of chains and a metal pipe to his pickup truck and then drive it through the rows of FLAGS and CROSSES bearing the names of our fallen soldiers that the protestors had put up — to symbolically kill the already dead — because the sight of such a memorial might be making the president look bad.
As if he doesn’t do a good enough job of that all by himself with being too damn COWARDLY, CALLOW, and CALLOUSED to face the shattered families who have also been victims of his optional, cooked-up, ideologically driven war — that he waged in manner that guaranteed it would be a complete and utter failure at the enormous expense of their childrens lives, and at the groaning expense of the American taxpayers, and all of our children.
It makes me so damn sick and disgusted.
Adrienne, that is the outcome and goal of passive resistance. It so infuriates those who desire to abuse power that it causes them or their constituents to show in full view of the public the black heart that motivates them. That idiot who mowed down the crosses of legal and peaceful demonstrators is a perfect example. A Bush supporter showing the true heart of at least some Bush supporters.
His may be an isolated incident, but, his loathing and hatred of Americans exercising constitutional rights, is not isolated and is shared by a great many more Bush supporters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2005 01:45 AMDavid
Sorry about that last commemt, I wrote it without proof reading first. You said that People and Consumer are different and that by changing the words in The Preamble would somehow change America.
Not true, as America started out by not being represented in government (Boston Tea Party)and factual law even than showed that the Universe, itself consumes. Than one can use reason and logic to draw a line which can clearly show that America will allow anything known to exist in Nature to be Represented in Our Government. Hence “We the Consumers” given representation to all that consumes in the universe has the Right of Domain over their actions upon The Land.
Corporations, Dirty plants, Potholes, etc. all need to be represented in The Courts and Halls of Congress and held accountable before “We the People” so that America does not meet the same fate as many of other Nations of Humanity.
Yes, this realm of thought and vison goes beyond not being able to see the forest for the trees. It makes a person use their vision to see a tree as more than just bark, branches, and leafs. Look at a tree again, does it not consume and can you not use your sight to see the sap run up the tree from the roots to the branches? Without that part does the tree even exist?
Cardinal Knowledge of America and Humanity’s Civilizations of Laws is about being found unalienable Right based on the Common Knowledge of the average Layman and is my Constitutional Right since I have never been learned in Law or Criminal Justice. However, the ability to use it properly in The Courts of The Land and Public Domain is quickly becoming a lost Art in America.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 17, 2005 01:57 AMHenry, I just can’t seem to grasp the metaphysical connection you make between the universe and nature and our nation based on the rule of law, not natural forces. Law is a completely artificial construct of the human mind, having no existence or relevance outside the mind of human beings. I just don’t see the connection.
If you are intimating a friction between our nation’s laws and the laws of the universe in environmental terms, then yes, I see the connection. But, nature’s laws dictate ordered chaos, (chaos bound by predictable limitations if you will), or in human terms anarchy as defined by some environmental oriented philosophers. Are you postulating an anarchist’s viewpoint? Such views have much merit, but, if that is what you’re trying to get at, I am not seeing it very clearly.
David,
I like talking to you because you can expand mt owm thoughts, Thanks.
By using Reason and Logic, we know that “The Big Bang” happened. The second that it took place a Beast of Nature “I the Consumer” was created to consume all that was known to be wrong. How can a reasonable and Logical person draw such a conclusion? Does not The Universe consume the Darkness of Space which is siad to be wrong? Even on Earth that which is deemed wrong by Man or Nature goes to The Sands of Time to be consumed. Since everything that is found to be False and Unalienable wrong is consumed by this Beast of Nature than building a Civilization (i.e. Nation) which he can not consume must be found to be unalienable Right by The Laws of Man and Nature.
Although I can prove that America’s and Humanity’s Nations following the Beast of Nature “I the Corporation” will get The Human Race to where we all want to be. There are ethical and moral questions that is better asked and answered by “We the Consumers.” One example that I use in my book is the fact that Society would say it is unethical and inmoral for the Corporation that makes a Million Dollar Yacht to sue Society for their unalienable Right to have the Poorest Consumer who adds positively to the function of society capable of purchasing their product; thus given them as many Potentail Economically Viable Customers as corporations like Wal-Mart. Nevertheless, as a political group representing “We the Consumers” is it not our right and duty to sue (not sure if that is the right word) society so that every citizen who adds positively to the function of society have real equal and fair access to Commerce?
Limited minds and material stop the Youth of the 60’s from going here; however, want to bet me that the technology doesn’t exist to let us build a world that we could only dream of in the 70’s?
Now, how far Human Nature of the Society will let us move to that which is known to be unalienable Right using the Righteousness found in Common Sense Law represents the choas you talk about in Man and Nature. Ask me why it works the way it does when a person applies it to The Cardinal Knowledge of America and Humanity’s Civilization and I’ll ask you as My Elder to explain it to me.
Well got to run, but as usual I have enjoyed your insights and thoughts.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 17, 2005 04:19 AMAdrienne:
I’d suspect if you have been reading on Watchblog about the comments made regarding Cindy Sheehan that you’d have seen very little condemnation of her. There’s been general support for her right to have her say, though not necessarily for WHAT she is saying. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say something…not the freedom to force others to agree.
You use the heinous example of an idiot running his truck through crosses to tar the entire “Bushco”. Should it be fair to use anyone from the anti-war left with a radical position to tar the entire anti-war left? I doubt you’d agree with that tactic, though its one you just freely used to bolster your position.
I support Sheehan’s right to protest wholeheartedly. I also wholeheartedly disagree with her message, and fear she is starting to be used by the MoveOn.org types for their purposes.
I think the guy who ran his truck through the flags should be prosecuted. In my book, he is not indicative of most of the people who oppose Sheehan’s view. But that’s how you positioned it, simply to earn points for your side.
Polarization is such an ugly thing, and to see you stoop so low as to promote it is a sad thing. I’ve learned from reading posts on Watchblog that it happens, and even when it doesn’t, those who want polarization hunt for quotes that will create it. Its really a shame.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 17, 2005 08:04 AMI believe the incident with the pickup truck mowing down the crosses is just another Texas type of hell raising by people so unaware that they didn’t even know what the stuff was or stood for. Unrelated to the Sheehan show.
Their attitude probably was “shoot, that stuff weren’t there yesterday, let’s have a beer and git it”.
That type of thing happens in rural areas throughout America every day.
My first question would be that with all the media attention on the Cindy Sheehan entourage and the law enforcement protection that had to have been provided, this couldn’t have happened unless a whole bunch of folks were looking the other way.
How about the army of photographers on site, TV station personnel, etc. Where were they.
Posted by: steve smith at August 17, 2005 09:08 AMIt seems that I am not as current on the Cindy Sheehan issue as I should be. I did not realize that she is now working with a political consultant and a public relations team.
Also, she is doing TV commercials (I have not seen them).
All of this gives one pause to wonder as to the source of the substantial funds necessary to support such an entourage.
Surely the sale of key chains, posters and T shirts cannot raise enough money for the abovementioned activities.
Posted by: steve smith at August 17, 2005 11:45 AMAdrienne,
Hey, Riverbend is one I pass by alot. I just do not accept Al Jezerra. There are alot of reasons.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 17, 2005 12:20 PMjbod:
“I’d suspect if you have been reading on Watchblog about the comments made regarding Cindy Sheehan that you’d have seen very little condemnation of her.”
I’ve seen enough to disturb me. It follows a pattern, too (think Michael Shiavo or Richard Clarke, two examples that come immediately to my mind, though I know there are others). Anyone who doesn’t agree with the president or go along with the views of the right is going to get smeared, or have their sannity questioned, or have their personal life dragged through the Fauxnews mudhole.
“You use the heinous example of an idiot running his truck through crosses to tar the entire “Bushco”. Should it be fair to use anyone from the anti-war left with a radical position to tar the entire anti-war left?”
Sure, go ahead. I’ve already seen that done more times than I count. I think most of us on the left have gotten quite used to that at this point. Funny though how often and how loudly you all object when I decide to give you a bit of the same treatment.
“its one you just freely used to bolster your position.”
Well, I could just as easily have sited the incident that happened the day before — the guy across the road who shot a gun off in the air in direction of the protesters, who later told the press that he was getting ready for “dove season”. He claimed to be tired of having so many people around, but then it turns out that he’s always mobbed by the press whenever the president visits the ranch (which as we know, is all too often) and lets them shoot vistas of the president’s property from his own all the time.
There seems to be a surplus of anger and aggression within a large segment of people on the right (even though you control the entire government) and it is definitely large enough for me to aim at as a target.
“I support Sheehan’s right to protest wholeheartedly. I also wholeheartedly disagree with her message, and fear she is starting to be used by the MoveOn.org types for their purposes.”
And the point is? They both want the same thing — to end the war. And maybe it’s reciprocal. Maybe she’s using them and they’re using her, and it’s all working out very well. Of course, this whole thing could have come to nothing — but the president chose to ignore her and so, it grew.
“Polarization is such an ugly thing, and to see you stoop so low as to promote it is a sad thing.”
The Right is only reaping what they have sown. The polarization didn’t start from my side, it started on yours with Richard Mellon Scaife, Ken Starr and the Clinton impeachment and then intensified with the tactics of Karl Rove. And the left, of course, has become very, very tired of it. Hence, the Dem’s hire Howard Dean not to pull his punches. And Air America quickly starts to move ahead on the AM dial. And farther left you have Michael Moore making films that break all admission records for documentaries and win the Palme d’or, and writing books that make the bestseller lists before they’re even published. You guys are constantly creating your own monsters (I could point to several dictators here, as well) and then do nothing but complain about the outcome. It’s hilarious.
“Its really a shame.”
Yes, it is that too.
Steve:
“I believe the incident with the pickup truck mowing down the crosses is just another Texas type of hell raising by people so unaware that they didn’t even know what the stuff was or stood for. Unrelated to the Sheehan show. Their attitude probably was “shoot, that stuff weren’t there yesterday, let’s have a beer and git it”.”
The guy is 48 years old. And it was too premeditated (what with all the chain and pipe attaching involved) to be just a drunken redneck lark.
“My first question would be that with all the media attention on the Cindy Sheehan entourage and the law enforcement protection that had to have been provided, this couldn’t have happened unless a whole bunch of folks were looking the other way.”
He barrelled through in his truck late at night. Typical behavior of a coward.
And I believe local law enforcement was probably at home asleep in their beds. After all, the place is full of peaceful protesters who have been friendly and cooperative with the police.
“How about the army of photographers on site, TV station personnel, etc. Where were they.”
Most likely holed up in their vans somewhere?
Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2005 12:28 PMI believe the incident with the pickup truck mowing down the crosses is just another Texas type of hell raising by people so unaware that they didn’t even know what the stuff was or stood for. Unrelated to the Sheehan show.Their attitude probably was “shoot, that stuff weren’t there yesterday, let’s have a beer and git it”.
HIGHLY unlikely. Americans are quite ignorant, but this theory is really pushing it beyond believeable limits.
That idiot who mowed down the crosses of legal and peaceful demonstrators is a perfect example. A Bush supporter showing the true heart of at least some Bush supporters.His may be an isolated incident, but, his loathing and hatred of Americans exercising constitutional rights, is not isolated and is shared by a great many more Bush supporters.
I get the impression that they are as much, if not more, intimidated by the level of publicity this is getting, rather than the actual message Sheehan is trying to make. Sweep it back under the rug, so to speak. If enough holes can’t be punched in Sheehan’s claim to denounce her, let’s just make her go away.
Posted by: Taylor at August 17, 2005 01:22 PMJarin, I live in Topeka and I speak out against Fred everyday, plus I meet the other two criteria of supporting the war and thinking Sheehan is an idiot. An idiot with the right to speak, but an idiot. I’m just really, really confident that by protesting military funerals that the laws of natural consequences will take its toll… Hold them signs higher, Fred, and move a little to the left, please.
Posted by: Guest at August 17, 2005 01:43 PMOh, and just in case it hasn’t been said before, if women ruled then the wars would be fought left and right. I live with a woman and the grudges she bears, the words she say and the anger that builds up in her… ooooooh, yeah, we’d be in Iraq all right, and France and Germany and any other place that looked at us funny. My dealings with other women don’t give me any sense that it’s just her, either.
Posted by: Guest at August 17, 2005 01:46 PM->Sheehan has every right to do what she is doing.
->Moveon.org has every right to “use her”.
->The President (the office of more so that the man) has every right to refuse to meet with her if for no other reason than it would set a precedent that every person with a gripe would just start camping out till they get to meet with the President.
->The press has every right to sensationalize all of it.
->The idiot in the truck has every right to disagree with the protest and also has every right to forever be labeled “that idiot in the truck” by most thinking, feeling, Americans regardless of party affiliation.
->Her husband has every right to file for a divorce from her because she has chosen to ignore him and their living son to pursue this protest.
Thats all well and good. My question is… What happens to her when this all goes away? Media gets another story, Moveon.org moves on, The President has still not met with her, the idiot in the truck is still an idiot and her then ex-husband and living son are hurt and bitter that their wife/mom chose this over them.
Cindy Sheehan will become what then? I think this is what many people are concerned with. The more this gets hyped up the more she will lose once the circus ends (and it will end).
This whole thing, while it is wonderful for the war protesters and Bush bashers really is accomplishing little more than ruining one woman and her family’s life even more than it already was from losing their son and brother.
I hope I’m wrong… I fear I’m not… But hey! It helps the cause right!
Posted by: BradM at August 17, 2005 01:46 PMBradM, she is an adult and makes her choices. She has chosen to sacrifice much by your own words for a cause she believes in. How many of the rest of us can say this? Many, but, certainly not most, I would venture.
I once destroyed my future in a great job with a huge insurance company by organizing some employees in a right to work state to challenge the company’s blatant criminal violation of overtime laws. As the leader and spokesperson for the employees, I knew I was giving up my career there, I also knew the many months of sleepless nights and anxiety of dealing with the company’s counselors, VP’s and legal department representatives as well as my direct supervisor’s challenges to step outside and settle this like a man, would result in a victory for all the thousands of employees around the country in that company.
We prevailed. And the company made it abundantly clear I had no future for advancement at the company. They couldn’t fire me because of EEOC protection against retaliation as long as I gave them no other just cause. A short time later, I elected to leave the company for a brighter future, and newborn daughter, and time with my wife.
It was worth it. And to this day, more than a decade later, some employees at the company still speak my name in very high regard. Sheehan has whatever future she makes for herself, same as any of the rest of us. I wouldn’t worry too much about what she has given up, she is making friends who will never forget her courage, sense of purpose, and tenacity. We can all get by with a little help from our friends, and she has many and more are coming everyday.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2005 02:36 PMWell said David.
I’d have to ask also, what would Sheehan stand to accomplish by doing nothing at all? What kind of future does she have if she chose to shut up and sit down? (Not sure anyone can really answer this, but just posing the other side of the coin to be considered)
Posted by: Taylor at August 17, 2005 03:17 PMGuest:
“Oh, and just in case it hasn’t been said before, if women ruled then the wars would be fought left and right.”
Nah. Only on the Right, I think. ;^)
“I live with a woman and the grudges she bears, the words she say and the anger that builds up in her… ooooooh, yeah, we’d be in Iraq all right, and France and Germany and any other place that looked at us funny.”
Might change your whole perspective for the better if you spent more time around lefty women. By design we generally admire diplomacy, cooperation and peaceful solutions to problems whenever and wherever possible.
“My dealings with other women don’t give me any sense that it’s just her, either.”
I think sometimes you’ve just got to break out of that old rut and widen your circle of aquaintances…
Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2005 03:28 PMHi All:
I admire Cindy Sheehan, it takes a lot of courage to do what she is doing by not “ACCEPTING” the PARTYLINE of mumbo-jumbo, and demanding a personal meeting with Emporer Bush II, whether or not she meets with him. She has called for our fearless leader to take a stand, Hey Mr. Bush, can’t you spare 10 minutes for a grieving mother, Whose son paid you the “Ultimate Price” when he took that bullet in your “war”. He did his duty, Be a man and do yours. Meet with her. Imagine your “Approval Rating” actually climbing for once. Look’s good now, don’t it?
Just Passing Gas,
As Always,
Wayne
Adrienne,
My bad. I just figured that with an encampment within a couple miles of the President’s location and hundreds of protesters, (potentially angry ones at that) media of every variety and, as of yesterday over 60 complaints from townspeople that the encampment was in a dangerous place (bend in the road or some such)and a nuisance, that a few people, possibly even law enforcement people would be keeping an eye out for pickup trucks with drunk drivers dragging chains.
The previous day the farmer across the road had fired a shotgun in the air in the general direction of the encampment. I guess I was mistaken when I thought that this situation would require someone to stay awake at night to alert people to danger.
I understand that Cindy Sheehan, under the guidance of her political advisor and public relations people are planning to move their settlement CLOSER to the President’s ranch sometime in the near future.
It may be that all of this is playing perfectly into Cindy’s plan in that soon we will have CIA, FBI, maybe National Guard on site. It is probably not beyond the realm of possibility that they are already putting together a file on Cindy and her advisors to use in a subversive activity action.
Posted by: steve smith at August 17, 2005 04:59 PMSteve,
My bad. I just figured that with an encampment within a couple miles of the President’s location and hundreds of protesters, (potentially angry ones at that) media of every variety and, as of yesterday over 60 complaints from townspeople that the encampment was in a dangerous place (bend in the road or some such)and a nuisance, that a few people, possibly even law enforcement people would be keeping an eye out for pickup trucks with drunk drivers dragging chains.
What is this posturing relevant to?
Posted by: Taylor at August 17, 2005 05:50 PMSteve:
“I just figured that with an encampment within a couple miles of the President’s location and hundreds of protesters, (potentially angry ones at that)”
They’re peaceful protesters trying to stop a war. The ones they are angry with is the president and the administration, not the townspeople of Crawford, or the American people at large.
“media of every variety and, as of yesterday over 60 complaints from townspeople that the encampment was in a dangerous place (bend in the road or some such)”
She is where they told her she could be.
“and a nuisance,”
Too bad. The president could met with Cindy Sheehan and made it all go away, but didn’t. Just like he could have told us the truth before the war, but didn’t. Just like they could have fought the war to win it, but didn’t. In all three scenarios, they’d have had a lot less grieving parents gathering then.
“that a few people, possibly even law enforcement people would be keeping an eye out for pickup trucks with drunk drivers dragging chains.”
No one can stop a truck going full speed with the intent to scare people who aren’t expecting vandalism to be perpetrated upon American flags and the names of dead American soldiers written on crosses, yes?
“The previous day the farmer across the road had fired a shotgun in the air in the general direction of the encampment. I guess I was mistaken when I thought that this situation would require someone to stay awake at night to alert people to danger.”
Well, the cops went over to his house and had a talk with him warning him not to do the same again, and he got some media attention which seemed sure to be featured on Fauxnews — this seems to have placated him and calmed him down to a large degree.
“I understand that Cindy Sheehan, under the guidance of her political advisor and public relations people are planning to move their settlement CLOSER to the President’s ranch sometime in the near future.”
Yes, indeed. Fred Mattlage, an army veteran who is a distant relative of the wingnut who was preparing for “dove season” has said that he sympathizes with the demonstrators and thought that they’d be safer on his corner 1 acre lot — which also happens to be much closer to the presidents property than where they are now.
“It may be that all of this is playing perfectly into Cindy’s plan in that soon we will have CIA, FBI, maybe National Guard on site.”
I believe the National Guard may be too busy fighting the Iraq War, but no doubt the others have already inflitrated the scene.
“It is probably not beyond the realm of possibility that they are already putting together a file on Cindy and her advisors to use in a subversive activity action.”
Wouldn’t be a bit surprised.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2005 06:25 PMI once destroyed my future in a great job with a huge insurance company by organizing some employees in a right to work state to challenge the company’s blatant criminal violation of overtime laws.
David, While I can respect what you did I can not see the comparison between you and her. Choosing to lose a job is not even close (IMO) to choosing to lose your family. Making a choice of a “cause” over your family speaks to some serious healing and help that she and her family need. Dont forget that her husband and son lost someone too. Now they may have lost another.
As you said she is an adult and makes her own chioces… This is true but it’s a sad day to me when we are not only ok with but cheer on someone choosing political activisim over family.
Posted by: BradM at August 17, 2005 07:03 PMAdrienne,
Good to see you back BTW.
I love these situations where an equally strong case can be made for either the pro or con position.
Naturally we are both wrong.
That aside, I see a very obvious “tempering” of your posts. I am used to much more agressive opinions from you.
Posted by: steve smith at August 17, 2005 07:12 PMBradM, I am sorry. Did I miss something you read that said her surviving child is divorcing her too? Or did you read something saying she was giving up her remaining children? 6 out of 10 marriages in America will end in divorce. I would hardly connect her divorce to her choice to demonstrate before the President. Divorces happen for all kinds of reasons not the least of which is lack of committment, the kind of which her husband is showing in seeking the divorce.
He may have good reasons, she may be a rotten wife. But, none of that has anything to do with the cause she has taken up and its merits, nor does any of that detract from the importance of her actions for herself and to the millions of Americans who empathize with what she stands for.
Every family has skeletons in the closet. One of hers happened to seize this time to open the closet the door. Doesn’t mean a thing as far as I am concerned about the perceived worthiness of her cause for herself and followers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2005 07:32 PMBradM, P.S. we make our choices, and depending on the results, we make more choices. That was the point of my experience at the insurance co. which is Sheehan experience as well. She made a choice. Perhaps as a consequence, perhaps not, after making that choice to demonstrate, her husband is choosing to divorce. So, whe will make some decisions in response to that.
I am confident she did not say to herself, well, I can dump my family or prompt them to leave me if I go do this demonstration thing, so I will do that, which is what your comment implies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 17, 2005 07:36 PMSteve:
“Good to see you back BTW.”
Thanks. Between something my cousin said to me during his visit, and then Ray asking me to stay in the other thread on this topic in the blue column, I decided to come back and keep making my arguments here.
“I love these situations where an equally strong case can be made for either the pro or con position.”
I don’t agree. I think the fact that the president isn’t willing or indeed cannot, answer Cindy Sheehan’s question of what noble cause her son died for pretty much says it all. Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war even with our presence there and it seems obvious that because of all the Neocon’s f*ck-ups, this war and their democracy isn’t going to be won us. It’s time to bring the troops home.
“That aside, I see a very obvious “tempering” of your posts. I am used to much more agressive opinions from you.”
Well, I’d be pleased to see if I can go a week without the WB manager attaching a warning to one of my posts! :^) But no doubt I’ll be back to my usual sharp-tongued self soon enough.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 17, 2005 08:10 PMI just want to interject and say that, despite all of the personal attacks and attempts to undermine Cindy and her cause, it doesn’t matter in the least bit because she’s already won.
It’s not really about Bush meeting with her or answering her question or pulling troops out of Iraq. It’s about bringing the issue of accountability into the limelight and to fuel discourse and debate on the merits of this war. Bush has gotten a free pass for too long and Cindy, almost singlehandedly, has changed that.
All the crying in the world from you Righties does not change the fact that Cindy’s already won the game. Bush’s polls continue to drop and the public is started to challenge the motives behind the Iraq War. Time to face reality Bushies — the tides have turned and you’re better served saving your breath on Cindy Sheehan venom because every time you say her name you add fuel to the fire in this debate.
Posted by: Andrew L. at August 17, 2005 09:06 PMI agree, Cindy Sheehan has won.
Sitting in a ditch without running water, toilets and the ability to bathe while waiting to talk to someone whom you know full well is not going to acknowlwedge you is the one clear sign of victory that I always tend to overlook.
It’s like trying to remember the names of the 7 dwarfs.
Posted by: steve smith at August 17, 2005 10:28 PMSteve Smith, civil rights came about by just exactly the same kind of victories. History has much with which to enlighten you and your opinion.
Women’s suffrage came about largely because a handful of women much like Sheehan stood outside the Whitehouse for months, without water, toilets, etc., spat upon, threatened, finally incarcerated, force fed when they hunger struck, and after many such victories, the President relented, backed off his veto threat, and women achieved the right to vote.
Yes, Steve, such victories have had immense consequences and changed many a world for many a people.